by Laurențiu Diaconu-Colintineanu

photo: Ioana Moldovan

Do you like what you see out your office window?

Yes, I do. I like it because what you can see from my win­dow pinpoints Bucharest. We are inside of the central ring and I see exactly this mixture. I see the steeples of the church, a former factory, fire walls, communist blocks, interwar houses, ivy ... It is the exact urban confusion that defines Bucharest.

In contrast with the majority who thinks that Bucharest is ugly just because of its disarray, do you like it?

This is the city; it is the nature of it. As an architect, it is extremely interesting because it is an unfinished city, a living city, a city that is still in limbo. It’s a picture that I got used to. I am more disturbed by the pavements than by the image that I see here. And generally, if you have seen a footage from above the 20th floor of a building or even higher up, Bucharest looks more interesting because, despite of what it is said, it is a very green city. Almost every yard has a tree. Yet, the sidewalk is very bad. But the picture that upsets me is what I see every day walking to the office across Hala Traian, where you find a lot of urban and municipal promiscuity. The link between the street and the house, that very sensitive angle looks messy. If you want to see a city, you must look in the corners where the street meets the house. That’s where we can see that, in fact, it’s messy, but not necessarily dirty. It is rather a sign of poverty and a lack of interest in an area where the public space meets the private space. The sidewalk is the city property and it’s as bad as the parapet of the unattended house, a dusty old and an unattended, dirty „old“.

Is Bucharest moving to a stage of completion?

Not at all, I think it will be a long time like this beca­use this is the way it was developed. Bucharest was never drawn as a city with a street layout, with a center, with a plan. Bucharest was formed from many centers that were actually given from the churches that formed districts. These districts were placed next to each other and formed a historic plan of the city. Over these districts were placed some avenues that needed to be cut. First it was the north-south avenue and the east-west one and then came Ceausescu who also cut something. Recently, Buzeşti – Berzei street was also cut. The only boulevard that has not been cut into the city ‹s fabric is Kiseleff, which was planned from the beginning into a green area, which has not been a subject to any historic scheme. Here you can see the difference between an occidental city made after a plan and Bucharest, which hasn’t had any. It was always adapted to particular needs and this adaptation is seen in Bucharest. This very chaotic development makes Bu­charest indispensable as a capital and I do not think we have no choice but to continue with it. But to me it seems impor­tant to continue in the same direction, and not to deviate to «We loved Paris, let’s make it Paris“. Or „We liked London, let’s make it London». We have to understand Bucharest and to develop it in its disorder. Old houses, new houses, high houses, small houses. It›s almost impossible to align Bucha­rest. It should be destroyed and rebuilt. But that would be nonsense. Bucharest is a city that is alive not only through its residents. And, let’s be honest, only the dead stays perfectly flat and doesn’t move. The continuous movement of the city means that it is alive.

Because you talked about Buzeşti - Berzei and the idea of distroying the city, which side of the story do you support in the Hala Matache controversy?

In the instance of such an organically developed city, its need is more important than the desire. Therefore, that avenue is a need and keeping the building is a wish. The need prevails in such a city. No matter if we want it or not, we have to give the city what is vital for it. However, I recently went from the rail station to Marriott and it is much quicker and easier than a month ago. When this avenue will be fi­nished and we will drive under the Parliament park for going to Rahova, then the traffic on Calea Victoriei and Magheru will be more fluid. It will be an opportunity for the city a new center will emerge and will create an interest in the „back“ of the city. We have so many „back“ areas in Bucharest, which are lost areas. Take the back of Casa Poporului, where, para­doxically, we have the National Museum of Contemporary Art. We struggled for such a long time to build a concert hall of 1,500 seats, which is relatively small, for George Enescu Festival and we failed. Without Casa Poporului, we would not have such a museum. But today this area is still a „back“. The avenue behind has areas will open them to the city.

”We have to understand Bucharest and to develop it in its disorder. Old houses, new houses, high houses, small houses. It›s almost impossible to align Bucharest.”

Regarding St. Iosef Cathedral, can we talk about neces­sity versus wish?

I think the recipe for the Bucharest architecture is the combination of old and new. I do not know if it is the best solution in this case, but I am not so much against as others. There are two buildings from completely different eras that, if you ask me, reinforce each other. That office block with the cathedral would have been a very sad place. And the cathe­dral is better highlighted placed near such a contrast. Things that are in contrast are stron­ger, are more vivid, they are a benefit. If we walk through a neighborhood full of cathe­drals like St. Iosif or houses only from that period, it would be a sad neighborhood, less par­ticipatory than this medley of old and new. I think it depends more on the ability of the archi­tect and the materials he uses. And I admit that there are only few examples in Bucharest which really manage to reinforce the contrast between old and new. And there is something else: the world is already fa­miliar with Cathedral Plaza . If we want to demolish the buil­ding tomorrow, I do not think that will gather many people. Habit is a second nature, and after 20 years of Cathedral Plaza there will be no many people „disturbed“. If we would not only judge with nostalgia or from a historical position, then we would be delighted by a lot of things that are offered to us today and we would not be so upset with everything that is new. We do not wear a top hat, we do not wear the clothes from 100 years ago... Even if we go towards that era, the clothes are cut differently, we have different colors, diffe­rent textures. So, not accepting this redesigned and reread „new“ make us lose a lot of joy.

You have characterised yourself as a „rupture“ archi­tect. What does this mean?

I like to make an architectural intervention in a place where I feel that there is a severance between districts. The city may not be continuous, but there are areas that have a certain continuity. Bucharest, for example, has developed, by gluing several districts together, a certain personality and consistency. The place where they meet is a rupture. That space is very interesting because an architect can, by works of architecture, not urbanism, link those areas which came close to each other. There are places full of positive energy, interesting places and noble places, but also places with po­tential. There are some limitations that oblige the architect to nonconformist solutions that can not keep the side of any of the two areas.