Budapest is the capital of Hungary, and is the industrial, commercial, and cultural center
of the country. The city is situated on the Danube River, in the geographic center of the
region. With the compromise between Hungary and Austria in 1867, a period of
economic prosperity and a population growth of enormous speed began. In 1869 the three
towns (Buda, Pest, and Óbuda) that were to be united four years later into Budapest had
280, 349 inhabitants. At the turn of the century, Budapest already had a population of
733,350. In 1871 the first international competition in urban development was announced
to restructure the capital. Its program underlined the importance of the Chain Bridge as
the central connection between Buda and Pest. A system of boulevards and avenues was
realized as the result of the competition and subsequent revisions, and the urban structure
of Budapest today is determined by the largescale realization of what was probably the
most consistent attempt to create a bourgeois city in Europe.
The Danube is the determining element of the monumental cityscape, its sweep
underlined by the closed building facades on the embankments. The architectural
treatment of the river-front and St. Marguerite Island, which became an urban park, was
seen by many urban planners of the time as a major achievement. The problem of
creating well-functioning connections between Pest and Buda was solved by a number of
bridges. The Buda side is dominated by the Gellért Hill and the Castle Hill with the
neobaroque Royal Castle (1880–91, Miklós Ybl and 1891–1905, Alajos Hauszmann) at
its top. The business center is on the (flat) Pest side, whose riverfront is dominated by the
colossal neo-Gothic Houses of Parliament (1904, Imre Steindl) and more recent hotels
that replace those destroyed in World War II.
The basis of Budapest’s prosperity was the grain-milling industry and the processing
and sale of other agricultural goods in the Carpathian basin. Urban development was
conducted by the Council of Public Works (1870–1949), a body related to the
municipality as well as to the government. The downtown business and residential
district was executed during the last three decades of the 19th century. The typical
residential unit of Budapest was a block of rental apartments with an interior courtyard.
Access to the individual flats was from open galleries in the courtyard. The quality of
apartments and the social status of their inhabitants could differ within a one-block area.
Upper-middle-class families built summer residences and villas on the green hills of
Buda. Low-income families lived on the outskirts of the city, near industrial zones.
At the beginning of the 20th century, Budapest’s architecture showed a pluralism of
styles: beside the various neostyles (Stock Exchange, 1905, Ignác Alpár), many
variations of Art Nouveau emerged (Academy of Music, 1907, Korb and Giergl),
Encyclopedia of 20th-century architecture 340
indicating connections with Vienna and other European cities. Ödön Lechner, whose
major work was the Postal Savings Bank (1901), and his followers tried to create a
national style that aimed to express Hungarian identity, using ornaments of peasant
embroideries and Oriental art. Early modern tendencies (Rózsavölgyi Building, 1912,
Béla Lajta), and National Romanticism (Calvinist Church, 1912, Aladár Árkay) also
emerged. Most of the architects graduated from the Technical University of Budapest,
such as the group of National Romanticists known as the “Young Ones” (Károly Kós,
Dénes Györgyi, Dezső Zrumeczky, Béla Jánszky, Valér Mende, and others). Their
architecture was influenced by Scandinavian National Romanticism (Eliel Saarinen and
Lars Sonck) as well as by the English Arts and Crafts movement.
The first social building program of Budapest was initiated by Mayor István Bárczy in
1908. As the result, between 1909 and 1913, Budapest built 25 blocks of flats and 19
colonies of small family houses for 6,000 families in three cycles (Wekerle housing
estate, a garden city of Budapest, 1912–13, by Károly Kós and others) as well as 55
public schools. The apartment block on Visegrádi Street (1910, Béla Málnai and Gyula
Haász) shows the emerging neoclassicism before World War I that put an end to the
dynamic development. The multinational Austro-Hungarian monarchy lost the war and
broke up into small national states in 1919. The economy recovered slowly during the
1920s. With most architects and artists of the avant-garde working abroad, the early
1920s was a period of a conservative neobaroque and other revivalist tendencies. A new,
functionalist aesthetics could only break through from 1929 on. The Hungarian CIAM
(Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne) group, with Farkas Molnár, József
Fischer, Pál Ligeti, and György Masirevich as its most significant members, was radical
and politically engaged but could realize only a few large-scale projects, such as the
housing development (1934) on Köztársaság Square. However, the group built a number
of villas for reformminded individuals.
In the 1930s, Budapest’s architecture started to show the impact of Italian rationalism,
such as the Church in Városmajor (1936, Aladár and Bertalan Árkay). The real
breakthrough occurred around 1935, when a “domesticated” modernism, stripped bare of
its social aims, became accepted by a large part of the population. Many apartment and
office buildings represent a very high aesthetic and technical quality, such as the Atrium
cinema and apartments (1936, Lajos Kozma), the Dunapark apartment building (1937,
Béla Hofstätter and Ferenc Domány), and the Financial Center (1939, László Lauber and
István Nyíri). In the early 1940s, two large working-class housing estates of detached
houses were built in Angyalfōld and at Albertfalva, financed by the Social Security Fund.
World War II did not spare the city; the population, as well as housing, infrastructure,
and economy, suffered enormous damages. Reconstruction work, which began
immediately after the war, was a long process that included apartments being built on the
lots of destroyed houses in Buda Castle by György Jánossy and by Zoltán Farkasdy
(among others). In 1948 the Communist Party assumed power and introduced total state
control over the production and distribution of goods, including housing. Now, urban and
architectural planning took place exclusively in large, state-owned offices with hundreds
of employees. During the 1950s, the development of large-scale industry was forced. The
quality reached a higher level in works of the planning office IPARTERV, specialized for
industrial buildings. An outstanding example of early postwar public building in the
International Style was the Trade Union Headquarters (1949, Lajos Gádoros and others).
Entries A–F 341
Between 1951 and 1953, the Communist Party forced the style of “socialist realism,”
following Soviet models (People’s Stadium, 1953, Károly Dávid; Institute building “R”
of the Technical University, 1955, Gyula Rimanóczy). In 1956 political oppression led to
an uprising against Communism. The uprising was crushed by Soviet tanks, but the party
was forced to begin a process of liberalization. Elements of a market economy were
introduced in 1968. A large-scale building program to eliminate housing shortage had
already been announced in 1960. Using traditional technology, housing estates of usually
2,000 flats were built in the inner residential zone. During the second half of the 1960s,
four plants producing prefabricated building parts were set into operation, and housing
estates of 10,000 flats were built in the transitory residential zone (Kispest, Budafok,
Rákospalota, Békásmegyer, and Újpest). In the 1970s the peak decade of the housing
production, the state built 105, 907 flats, or 65.7 percent of the whole production.
However, both the quantity and the quality of output were met with public dissatisfaction,
giving rise to a search for an organic language of architecture as represented by the
internationally publicized buildings of Imre Makovecz (funerary chapel, Farkasrét
Cemetery, 1977). Efforts were made, by using standardized designs, to satisfy the needs
for kindergartens, schools, stores, public health facilities, and other services. In 1970 the
Master School of Architects, an important forum for the exchange of ideas that was
closed in the 1950s, was reorganized. Buildings such as the CHEMOLIMPEX Office
Building (1964, Zoltán Gulyás), the DOMUS Furniture Store (1974, Peter Reimholz and
Antal Lázár), the MEDICOR Office Building (1975, Zoltán Gulyás and Peter Reimholz),
and the RADELKIS Office Building (1978, Antal Csákváry) are in line with international
tendencies of the time. Sports facilities with ingenious structures were built, such as
Spartacus Swimming Pool (1983, Ádám Sylvester). Public transportation was
strengthened by opening the east-west (1974) and north-south (1984) Metro lines.
The process of significant economic and political change had already begun before the
fall of Communism in 1989. Most of the large state-owned planning offices collapsed or
became privatized. Foreign capital and international businesses have been moving to
Budapest. Transforming 19th-century apartment blocks, banks are settling in the
downtown area (ING Bank, 1994, Erick van Egeraat and MECANOO Architects), and
high-tech office buildings, such as the Siemens Headquarters (1999, Péter Reimholz and
Antal Lázár), give the capital a late 20th-century skyline, at least in its details. New
ensembles are developing, such as the Graphisoft plant (1998, Ferenc Cságoly and Ferenc
Keller). Shopping malls are introducing Americanstyle commercial architecture into the
urban periphery. State-financed housing construction stopped, but private housing is on
the rise. The reconstruction process of residential blocks of the inner city has started.
Budapest has been developing from an industrial city into a tertiary economy city since
the 1960s.
BUCHAREST, ROMANIA
As the capital of Romania, Bucharest can be also considered the primary source of the
country’s modern architecture, beginning in the second half of the 19th century and
continuing throughout the 20th century. Like other major European capitals, the search to
define an emblematic national character for Bucharest’s architecture developed in
relationship to historical precedents as well as the contemporary milieu.
The 19th century represented a period of major change for Bucharest in both political
and cultural realms. The first half of the century encouraged Western European values of
culture and civilization, thus announcing a massive import of several architectural
currents—mainly neoclassicism and Romanticism—that progressively changed the
Oriental aspect of the city. In 1859, as the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia
unified, Bucharest became the capital of the new state of Romania and, in 1878, after the
country won its independence from the Ottoman Empire, the capital of the kingdom of
Romania. This gain in political prestige was reflected in the architectural field by an
important campaign of building monumental official institutions and luxury residencies,
all inspired by the French eclecticism of the École des Beaux-Arts. French influence,
dispersed through the work of French architects or Romanians trained at the École,
became so considerable that the city was nicknamed “Little Paris.” Urban planning
followed the same way of modernization by assimilating the French model, as it
happened for the creation of a series of boulevards inspired by Baron von Haussmann’s
Parisian model. Parallel to the spread of foreign currents, the first Romanian architects
attempted to create a style based on a national expression in Bucharest, interpreting the
rich heritage of historic and folk tradition.
As the majority of Romanian architects studied at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris,
even after the foundation of the School of Architecture in Bucharest in 1892, their
production mirrored the French aesthetic (primarily the historical revivalism and
academicism of Beaux-Arts or the neobaroque). Among the most important public
buildings designed according to the French method were the Palace of the Chamber of
Deputies (1907) and the Military Circle (1912), both by Dimitrie Maimarolu, and the
Palace of the Bourse (1911) by Stefan Burcus. However, the magnificence of the French
influence was reflected mostly in the sumptuous compositions of private dwellings, such
as those designed by Ion D. Berindey (1871–1928) and Petre Antonescu (1873–1965).
In contrast, the development of a “national” style emerged as a reaction against the
omnipresent foreign stylistic models. Its aesthetics exalted the local tradition, interpreting
Encyclopedia of 20th-century architecture 336
major examples from the Wallachian architecture of the 18th century (considered as the
most representative) and assimilating the craftsmanship and ornamentation of the folk
architecture. The first buildings to incorporate a Romanian-based style were private
homes, designed in tribute to a historicist vision rather than the modern International
Style. The General National Exposition in 1906, celebrating 40 years of the reign of King
Carol I, brought the official consecration of what could be called an indigenous
Romanian style of architecture. Its picturesque character made it increasingly popular for
residential architecture, but it also developed a monumental dimension, suitable for the
public programs, such as the Institute of Geology (1906) by Victor Stefanescu, the
Ministry of Public Works (1910) and the Bank Marmorosch-Blank (1912), both by Petre
Antonescu, the School of Architecture (1912–26) by Grigore Cerchez, and the Museum
of National Art (1912–38) by Nicolae Ghika-Budesti.
The creation of greater Romania after World War I by the unification of the ancient
kingdom with Transylvania, Bessarabia, and Bukovina initiated a flourishing period for
the country that fully benefited its capital as well. Bucharest developed into the most
vibrant economic and cultural center of Romania and doubled in population. The
“national” style became the official architecture for all architectural programs, from
administrative buildings to social housing designed by architects such as Antonescu, Paul
Smarandescu, and Static Ciortan.
Economic prosperity and a governmental legislation that encouraged construction
transformed Bucharest into a huge building site. The penetration of new architectural
ideas and modernist architecture was favored by several institutions and particularly
among intellectual circles with shared progressive or avant-garde views. Modernist
architecture never achieved an official status, but nevertheless it became the emblem of
post-World War II dynamism. In fact, the first important modernist building, the ARO
building (1929–31), was designed by Horia Creanga for such an institution: the insurance
company Asigurarea Româneasca (ARO). Other important public buildings developed
the potential of modernism, including those designed by Duliu Marcu, Rudolf Fraenkel,
and Arghir Culina. On the other hand, the language of modern architecture—reductive
geometries based on the grid, the elimination of ornamentation and historical references,
the adaptation of technological materials such as steel and glass—was adopted largely in
the housing programs by Horia Creanga, Ion Boceanu, Duliu Marcu, Tiberiu Niga, Octav
Doicescu, and many others. Modernism was consecrated as a consumer architecture, and
its various typologies of habitation, from the apartment buildings or villas to social
housing, spread all over the city and to its suburbs. Several compact areas of the city were
newly created during the 1930s, such as the central boulevards Take Ionescu and
Bratianu and the marginal district Vatra Luminoasa, renovations that generated a
completely new urban image. Among the industrial buildings, which were situated
mainly at the periphery of the city, included the Malaxa Industries building (1930–40) by
Creanga. Despite the austerity of the Creanga’s modernist vocabulary, he reached a
remarkable expressive force that remained unequaled in the production of the industrial
architecture.
Modernist architecture also shaped the national style, the latter of which adopted the
former’s principles of formal simplicity and monumentality, developing a new expression
and thus avoiding a certain regression induced by second-rate production. Modernism
Entries A–F 337
was embraced mainly by the young architects, such as Doicescu, Henriette Delavrancea-
Gibory, and Constantin Iotzu.
By the end of the 1930s, the increased authoritarian politics of King Carol II, who
declared his personal dictatorship in 1938, resulted in the promotion of a nostalgic
classicism, common in the whole of Europe of the time. Frequently called “the style
Carol II,” this tendency became the symbol of the official architecture, and it found in
Duiliu Marcu, architect of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1937–44), its most
accomplished exponent.
The installation of the Communist regime brought, among other
consequences, “The Socialist Reconstruction” of Bucharest, an ideological
and architectural movement that conferred a “suitable” image upon the
city as a new socialist capital; this period extended from 1952 to 1989.
However, although they almost always ignored precedent, the
interventions on the urban fabric did not radically modify the central area
of the city until the last years of the Communist regime. The sole important intervention of the early
years was that of the complex of buildings (1959–60), by Horia Maicu and collective,
erected in the Palace Square, which also included the former royal palace, reconverted
into the National Museum of Art. The 1950s were marked, more than anywhere else in
the country, by the coexistence of Stalinist architecture with rationalism, actually a
continuation of the interwar architecture. The classicist formalism of the Casa Scîntei
(The House of the Spark, 1950–51, Horia Maicu, Ludovic Staadecker, M.Alifanti, and
N.Badescu), of the Romanian Opera House (1952–53, Doicescu), and of the housing
program (the districts of Vatra Luminoasa and Bucurestii Noi) was contemporaneous—
and sometimes executed by the same architects—with works that displayed the strong
and authentic rationalism of the 1930s to 1940s, such as the Baneasa Airport (1948;
M.Alifanti, N.Badescu, A.Damina, and P. Macovei), the Pediatric Hospital “Emilia Irza”
(1950; Gr. Ionescu), the Pavilion H of the Expositional Center (1953; A. Damian), and
the Palace of the National Broadcasting (1960; T.Ricci, L.Garcia, and M.Ricci).
The 1960s and early 1970s brought an opening toward Western European culture,
including architecture. At the same time, this period was one of intensive construction
activity. Housing was built, mainly in the peripheral districts of Balta Alba, Drumul
Taberei, and Berceni. However, the most interesting architecture of these years were the
functionalist public buildings, such as the State Circus (1960; N.Porumbescu), the
Dorobanti Hotel (1974; V.Nitulescu, P.Vraciu, and Al. Beldiman), and the campus of the
Polytechnic Institute (1962–72; Doicescu and collective).
After a violent earthquake in the city in 1977, the idea of a socialist capital was
invigorated with the building of the Civic Center, which was of national importance and
was intended to solidify architecture’s relationship to political totalitarianism and
nationalism. This huge architectural complex, which was not yet completed in 1989, was
situated at the limit of the historic center and was erected on a massively demolished area
(about 500 hectares). During these years, the Bucharest architecture and particularly that
of the Civic Center and the House of the Republic abandoned the previous principles of
rationalism and functionalism in favor of a style that responded to the new ideological
orientation.
The 1990s focused on the restoration of the area destroyed in the 1970s and 1980s and
on the erection of the Civic Center. The international architectural contest “Bucharest
2000” (1995–96), organized by the Union of Romanian Architects, showed—particularly
through the designers of the winning project (Meinhard von Gerkan and Joachim Zais,
Germany)—viable solutions for articulating this area with the traditional urban fabric of
the city and possibilities for synchronizing Bucharest architecture with contemporary
European experiences.
country’s modern architecture, beginning in the second half of the 19th century and
continuing throughout the 20th century. Like other major European capitals, the search to
define an emblematic national character for Bucharest’s architecture developed in
relationship to historical precedents as well as the contemporary milieu.
The 19th century represented a period of major change for Bucharest in both political
and cultural realms. The first half of the century encouraged Western European values of
culture and civilization, thus announcing a massive import of several architectural
currents—mainly neoclassicism and Romanticism—that progressively changed the
Oriental aspect of the city. In 1859, as the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia
unified, Bucharest became the capital of the new state of Romania and, in 1878, after the
country won its independence from the Ottoman Empire, the capital of the kingdom of
Romania. This gain in political prestige was reflected in the architectural field by an
important campaign of building monumental official institutions and luxury residencies,
all inspired by the French eclecticism of the École des Beaux-Arts. French influence,
dispersed through the work of French architects or Romanians trained at the École,
became so considerable that the city was nicknamed “Little Paris.” Urban planning
followed the same way of modernization by assimilating the French model, as it
happened for the creation of a series of boulevards inspired by Baron von Haussmann’s
Parisian model. Parallel to the spread of foreign currents, the first Romanian architects
attempted to create a style based on a national expression in Bucharest, interpreting the
rich heritage of historic and folk tradition.
As the majority of Romanian architects studied at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris,
even after the foundation of the School of Architecture in Bucharest in 1892, their
production mirrored the French aesthetic (primarily the historical revivalism and
academicism of Beaux-Arts or the neobaroque). Among the most important public
buildings designed according to the French method were the Palace of the Chamber of
Deputies (1907) and the Military Circle (1912), both by Dimitrie Maimarolu, and the
Palace of the Bourse (1911) by Stefan Burcus. However, the magnificence of the French
influence was reflected mostly in the sumptuous compositions of private dwellings, such
as those designed by Ion D. Berindey (1871–1928) and Petre Antonescu (1873–1965).
In contrast, the development of a “national” style emerged as a reaction against the
omnipresent foreign stylistic models. Its aesthetics exalted the local tradition, interpreting
Encyclopedia of 20th-century architecture 336
major examples from the Wallachian architecture of the 18th century (considered as the
most representative) and assimilating the craftsmanship and ornamentation of the folk
architecture. The first buildings to incorporate a Romanian-based style were private
homes, designed in tribute to a historicist vision rather than the modern International
Style. The General National Exposition in 1906, celebrating 40 years of the reign of King
Carol I, brought the official consecration of what could be called an indigenous
Romanian style of architecture. Its picturesque character made it increasingly popular for
residential architecture, but it also developed a monumental dimension, suitable for the
public programs, such as the Institute of Geology (1906) by Victor Stefanescu, the
Ministry of Public Works (1910) and the Bank Marmorosch-Blank (1912), both by Petre
Antonescu, the School of Architecture (1912–26) by Grigore Cerchez, and the Museum
of National Art (1912–38) by Nicolae Ghika-Budesti.
The creation of greater Romania after World War I by the unification of the ancient
kingdom with Transylvania, Bessarabia, and Bukovina initiated a flourishing period for
the country that fully benefited its capital as well. Bucharest developed into the most
vibrant economic and cultural center of Romania and doubled in population. The
“national” style became the official architecture for all architectural programs, from
administrative buildings to social housing designed by architects such as Antonescu, Paul
Smarandescu, and Static Ciortan.
Economic prosperity and a governmental legislation that encouraged construction
transformed Bucharest into a huge building site. The penetration of new architectural
ideas and modernist architecture was favored by several institutions and particularly
among intellectual circles with shared progressive or avant-garde views. Modernist
architecture never achieved an official status, but nevertheless it became the emblem of
post-World War II dynamism. In fact, the first important modernist building, the ARO
building (1929–31), was designed by Horia Creanga for such an institution: the insurance
company Asigurarea Româneasca (ARO). Other important public buildings developed
the potential of modernism, including those designed by Duliu Marcu, Rudolf Fraenkel,
and Arghir Culina. On the other hand, the language of modern architecture—reductive
geometries based on the grid, the elimination of ornamentation and historical references,
the adaptation of technological materials such as steel and glass—was adopted largely in
the housing programs by Horia Creanga, Ion Boceanu, Duliu Marcu, Tiberiu Niga, Octav
Doicescu, and many others. Modernism was consecrated as a consumer architecture, and
its various typologies of habitation, from the apartment buildings or villas to social
housing, spread all over the city and to its suburbs. Several compact areas of the city were
newly created during the 1930s, such as the central boulevards Take Ionescu and
Bratianu and the marginal district Vatra Luminoasa, renovations that generated a
completely new urban image. Among the industrial buildings, which were situated
mainly at the periphery of the city, included the Malaxa Industries building (1930–40) by
Creanga. Despite the austerity of the Creanga’s modernist vocabulary, he reached a
remarkable expressive force that remained unequaled in the production of the industrial
architecture.
Modernist architecture also shaped the national style, the latter of which adopted the
former’s principles of formal simplicity and monumentality, developing a new expression
and thus avoiding a certain regression induced by second-rate production. Modernism
Entries A–F 337
was embraced mainly by the young architects, such as Doicescu, Henriette Delavrancea-
Gibory, and Constantin Iotzu.
By the end of the 1930s, the increased authoritarian politics of King Carol II, who
declared his personal dictatorship in 1938, resulted in the promotion of a nostalgic
classicism, common in the whole of Europe of the time. Frequently called “the style
Carol II,” this tendency became the symbol of the official architecture, and it found in
Duiliu Marcu, architect of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1937–44), its most
accomplished exponent.
The installation of the Communist regime brought, among other
consequences, “The Socialist Reconstruction” of Bucharest, an ideological
and architectural movement that conferred a “suitable” image upon the
city as a new socialist capital; this period extended from 1952 to 1989.
However, although they almost always ignored precedent, the
interventions on the urban fabric did not radically modify the central area
of the city until the last years of the Communist regime. The sole important intervention of the early
years was that of the complex of buildings (1959–60), by Horia Maicu and collective,
erected in the Palace Square, which also included the former royal palace, reconverted
into the National Museum of Art. The 1950s were marked, more than anywhere else in
the country, by the coexistence of Stalinist architecture with rationalism, actually a
continuation of the interwar architecture. The classicist formalism of the Casa Scîntei
(The House of the Spark, 1950–51, Horia Maicu, Ludovic Staadecker, M.Alifanti, and
N.Badescu), of the Romanian Opera House (1952–53, Doicescu), and of the housing
program (the districts of Vatra Luminoasa and Bucurestii Noi) was contemporaneous—
and sometimes executed by the same architects—with works that displayed the strong
and authentic rationalism of the 1930s to 1940s, such as the Baneasa Airport (1948;
M.Alifanti, N.Badescu, A.Damina, and P. Macovei), the Pediatric Hospital “Emilia Irza”
(1950; Gr. Ionescu), the Pavilion H of the Expositional Center (1953; A. Damian), and
the Palace of the National Broadcasting (1960; T.Ricci, L.Garcia, and M.Ricci).
The 1960s and early 1970s brought an opening toward Western European culture,
including architecture. At the same time, this period was one of intensive construction
activity. Housing was built, mainly in the peripheral districts of Balta Alba, Drumul
Taberei, and Berceni. However, the most interesting architecture of these years were the
functionalist public buildings, such as the State Circus (1960; N.Porumbescu), the
Dorobanti Hotel (1974; V.Nitulescu, P.Vraciu, and Al. Beldiman), and the campus of the
Polytechnic Institute (1962–72; Doicescu and collective).
After a violent earthquake in the city in 1977, the idea of a socialist capital was
invigorated with the building of the Civic Center, which was of national importance and
was intended to solidify architecture’s relationship to political totalitarianism and
nationalism. This huge architectural complex, which was not yet completed in 1989, was
situated at the limit of the historic center and was erected on a massively demolished area
(about 500 hectares). During these years, the Bucharest architecture and particularly that
of the Civic Center and the House of the Republic abandoned the previous principles of
rationalism and functionalism in favor of a style that responded to the new ideological
orientation.
The 1990s focused on the restoration of the area destroyed in the 1970s and 1980s and
on the erection of the Civic Center. The international architectural contest “Bucharest
2000” (1995–96), organized by the Union of Romanian Architects, showed—particularly
through the designers of the winning project (Meinhard von Gerkan and Joachim Zais,
Germany)—viable solutions for articulating this area with the traditional urban fabric of
the city and possibilities for synchronizing Bucharest architecture with contemporary
European experiences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)