Papers by Oana Tiganea
Docomomo Journal, 2013
The term “Modern industrial heritage” is usually associated, in the Romanian context, directly wi... more The term “Modern industrial heritage” is usually associated, in the Romanian context, directly with the 1920s-30s built legacy. This period is in fact commonly perceived as representative of the Romanian Modern Movement, in synchrony with the western Avant-garde. However, industrial traces even with modern influences were left on the national territory mostly by the 1945-89 Communist “forced industrialization.” The manifestation of the Communist industrial architecture was analyzed through the case study of Hunedoara Steelworks. It was also possible to investigate its destiny in the present context, dominated by a general resentment directed towards “political labeled” built environment. This analysis highlighted the vulnerability of the Romanian industrial heritage in the present context.
The matter of the 20th century architectural heritage widely represents a main research theme in ... more The matter of the 20th century architectural heritage widely represents a main research theme in a context of numerous impediments in its patrimonial endorsement. This context can worsen in the case of recent past built environment’s direct affiliation with political (totalitarian) regimes. Romania can be considered such a case, where the built environment dating the 1945 - 89 years is commonly associated with the Communist domination, and thereby, regarded with resentment.
In this context, the research puts focus on the Romanian industrialisation during Communism when it represented the trigger of all social-economic and territorial changes, but with particular attention to its industrial architectural manifestation as distinctive theme of the architectural practice of those years. Furthermore, following the moment of Communism’s fall in 1989, the research addresses also the impact of the post-socialist shifts on the industrial architectures and their perception from patrimonial point of view.
All these aspects were chosen to be analysed through the case study of Hunedoara, a Transylvanian town with a metallurgic industry already dating the 19th century, which during the Communism became an epitome of the 1945 - 89 industrialisation, but also an ‘experimental designing laboratory’ in matter of industrial architecture planning. However, in present day, Hunedoara represents a paragon of the deindustrialisation impact on metallurgy, bringing forward the issue of the recent past’s fast material disappearance.
The research, through the plural contextual reading and interconnection of various documentation sources, intends to bring forward the material architectural history of Hunedoara industrialisation during the 1945 – 89, interpreted so far strictly trough its political aspect, while the analysis of nowadays Hunedoara intends to rise further questions and debates concerning the approach of industrial heritage dating the recent past, especially in a context in which the ‘steel landscapes’ are threatened by complete disappearance.
Zeppelin magazine, no 137, Sep 2015
Deepening cooperation with the local government
and community, the second edition of
the indust... more Deepening cooperation with the local government
and community, the second edition of
the industrial heritage workshop held this year
in Anina focused on the identification, creative
interpretation and general assumption of the
identity elements as basis for the sustainable
regeneration of the area.
Aprofundând colaborarea cu administraţia
publică şi lucrul cu comunitatea locală, ediţia
a doua a Atelierului de patrimoniu industrial
desfăşurată anul acesta la Anina s‑a
concentrat pe identificarea, interpretarea
creativă şi asumarea generală a elementelor
identitare ca bază pentru regenerarea sustenabilă
a zonei.
Anina Mines of Ideas. Revitalization scenarios through cultural tourism: illustrated intervention recommendations concerning the built environment
Post-industrial revitalization scenarios through cultural tourism: illustrated intervention recom... more Post-industrial revitalization scenarios through cultural tourism: illustrated intervention recommendations concerning the built environment as result of the interdisciplinary workshop organized in Anina (Romania) during July - August 2014
Zeppelin magazine, no 129, Nov 2014
Știm cu toţii problema majoră a acţiunilor generoase legate de patrimoniu și cultură urbană în Ro... more Știm cu toţii problema majoră a acţiunilor generoase legate de patrimoniu și cultură urbană în România: cercetările, instalaţiile, expoziţiile, publicaţiile, evenimentele de tot felul funcţionează de obicei foarte bine, iar în ultima vreme apar și tot felul de iniţiative independente. Acestea au rezultate concrete și minunate, care însă rămân la scară mică și, cel mai important, nu reușesc aproape niciodată să implice autorităţile, rămânând astfel alternative la dezastruoasa practică obișnuită.
Do.Co.Mo.Mo. International Journal no.49, Dec 2013
Territorio, 2013
Industrial ruins arrived to represent a landmark of the Romanian territorial transformations occu... more Industrial ruins arrived to represent a landmark of the Romanian territorial transformations occurred in the post-socialist years. This is mainly due to the diffusion of the industries on the national territory associated with the economic transformations that affected them. In fact, the industrial diffusion all over Romania represents the final result of the territorial systematization process during the communism, when the urbanization was directly correlated with the industrialization in the purpose of building economic and social uniformity. Thus, from 1948 to 1989 in Romania was built an urban network formed mainly by medium sized mono-industrial towns, which were considered the ideal urban model. This article aims to analyze Romanian territorial transformations occurred since 1948 to present day with a particular attention to the industries role in the city planning practices, first contributing to the realization of the Romanian urban structure and second, influencing the urban transformations after 1989.
CONSERVATION/REGENERATION: The Modernist Neighbourhood, Mar 2013
The 3rd EAAE thematic Workshop on Conservation, through the proposed study case from Bucharest, b... more The 3rd EAAE thematic Workshop on Conservation, through the proposed study case from Bucharest, brings up some important issues not only over the notion of the architectural heritage but more exactly over the matter of the ‘weak architecture’ as a component of the 20th century architectural patrimony . Some reflections and debates over the definition of what exactly is this type of heritage, how it can be defined and nevertheless how to intervene on such a heritage are being arisen. The appraising of the proposed area does not come only from the value of the each individual building, but also from its urban qualities, environment. Therefore the multiplicity of the architectural styles and manifestations remarked in this area, added to the predefined city-planning interventions from the beginning of the 20th century, all together as an assembly becomes an important testimony of Romanian culture and society from between the two World Wars.
Our proposal intends to focus on the first theme of the workshop, in the desire to identify a methodology regarding the actual and future transformations of the area. Identifying the possible interventions grades at both architectural and urban level of such a heritage represents one of this study’s goals.
The area is characterized by a predominant continuity of the residential character found also today. In this moment, due to the city’s development dynamics the residential area is facing mainly external pressure regarding its functionality. Therefore the need to understand how it would be possible to regulate and coordinate, through a good acknowledging process, all the possible transformations which will actually define a new phase in the life of the buildings and of the area as an assembly. The comparison with various similar European case studies is considered to be necessary. This in order to identify and underline similarities with the studied area from Bucharest, and its own special characteristics and limits.
Books by Oana Tiganea
Conference Presentations by Oana Tiganea
The present Romanian heritage preservation context seems to be dominated by a more common feature... more The present Romanian heritage preservation context seems to be dominated by a more common feature specific to the ex-Socialist / Soviet countries and that is the predilection towards the pre-communist historic symbols in order to revive (manipulate) the national identities traumatized by the years of the Communism. Thus, in the last 25 years, in Romania, it was noticed the predilection to stress the pre-1945 historic value of the built heritage while anything slightly associated with the communist years (1945 – 89) was, and still is, regarded with resentment, and thereby, subject of uncontrolled interventions, abandon and demolition.
This aspect will be analysed through the case of the industrial heritage considered nonetheless a vulnerable typology of the 20th century built environment, but widely associated in Romanian context with the Communism due to the 1945 – 89 hyper-industrialisation process that shaped territories and communities. More precisely, the town of Hunedoara represents such a ‘Communist metallurgic icon’ (Goga O., 1969) despite its complex and multi-layered industrial development starting with 19th century. Its status changed in the post-1989 context when under the visible effects of deindustrialisation and its almost complete demolition became labelled as symbol of ‘Romanian decay’ (Andresoiu L., 2007).
Therefore, the attention will be directed towards the post-1989 destiny of this industrial territory through the analysis of the economic and urban revival mechanisms initiated here, of the actors involved in them and their impact in the local perception of the industrial legacy in parallel with the development of the legal framework in matter of heritage preservation. Hunedoara also illustrates a case of conflict and duality in matter of perception of industrial heritage between the academic world and decisional reality: while in the first environment Hunedoara’s industrial history gained multidisciplinary attention (Ioan R. 2007, Marginean M. 2013, Tiganea O. 2013), the latter context is dominated unanimous by its perception in matter of non-value and thus destined to perish.
Hunedoara case brings forward a common feature of Romanian context in which the disappearance of derelict industries occurs at a faster pace than the change in attitude and growth of social awareness and civic duties. But this material disappearance generated a wave of identity revival of the local community and re-connection with the industrial past.
Beginning with the late 1940s, Soviet-inspired models of industrialization and urbanization were ... more Beginning with the late 1940s, Soviet-inspired models of industrialization and urbanization were promoted as the main goals of both post-war reconstructions as socialist revolution in the Eastern Bloc. Unlike their counterparts from other Soviet satellites, the Romanian ‘new towns’ - a peculiar result of these efforts - were not so much objects of official propaganda. One reason was that their strategic importance went beyond plans of national economic development.
At the beginning of the Cold War such sites were developed to serve Soviet interests in Romania’s infrastructure, supplies (raw materials) and military industrial branches. A case in point was the town of Dr. Petru Groza, constructed in the vicinity of a uranium mine in north-western Romania. Other examples included Victoria (chemical industry) and Hunedoara (steel industry), both situated in Transylvania and both developing industrial facilities previously used by the Germans during the Second World War.
In a context of Soviet control and implementation of the centralized system, these urban settlements reflect on one hand the specific city planning approach promoted by the Communist leaders in the 1950s, and on the other the dilemmas faced by the architects given the reorganization of their profession. While in one case planners followed the principles of the ‘garden city’ (Hunedoara) during late 1940s, others were the direct implementation of the Soviet model based on the aesthetics of Socialist Realism (Dr. Petru Groza, Victoria).
This paper intends to examine the Romanian territory during the 1950s in terms of Cold War geopolitics, and thus, to bring into scholarly attention significant case studies rarely analyzed in the existing literature. From the perspective of urban history, it can be argued that they defined a new urban concept in Romanian context – the factory town ("oraşul uzinã" in Romanian) - which from late 1950s became the base of the national territorial systematization.
International scholarship on the new industrial cities built in the countries of the Eastern Bloc... more International scholarship on the new industrial cities built in the countries of the Eastern Bloc focused to a large extent on major examples such as Nowa Huta and Sztálinváros, which have been advertised in the propaganda since their beginnings as true embodiments of a new urban concept. Romania remained unfortunately in a grey area in the post-1989 literature on this particular topic, starting with Aman Anders’ chapter on new socialist towns in his book Architecture and Ideology in Eastern Europe during the Stalin Era: An Aspect of the Cold War History (1992). Yet, several case studies would be worthy of consideration. The closest example of a city developed around a large-scale metallurgical plant was Hunedoara, which expanded tenfold from an already existing industrial site to become an epitome of Communist-led industrialisation. Already from the late 1940s, Hunedoara also became an ‘experimental laboratory’ in matters of planning (urban and architectural), the solutions developed here being applied country-wide.
Another peculiar result of the Soviet-inspired models of industrialization and urbanization at the beginning of the Cold War were smaller-scale industrial towns, located in areas rich in natural resources (usually in Transylvania). A case in point was the town of Dr. Petru Groza, nowadays Ștei, constructed during the 1950s in the vicinity of a uranium mine in north-western Romania. Given the strategic interest of the Soviets in the uranium exploitation, the entire building process was surrounded by secrecy. The site was under close supervision of the secret police, and the new town did not even appear on the maps until the late 1970s. Needless to say, the publication of any information regarding its urban design and architecture was inconceivable. The town was initially built for Soviet and Romanian specialists, while the exploitation work was partially performed by convicts, housed in barracks.
Starting with 1952, Dr. Petru Groza town was established as a new settlement with an urban layout and architectural features based on the aesthetics of Socialist Realism: three main composition axes (boulevards) connect the socio-cultural facilities (sport and leisure, schools) with the political-administrative ones (the uranium mines administration, theatre, hospital), while the dwellings in various typologies are distributed in a green area along these boulevards. Even if of small dimensions (approx. 10,000 inhabitants in its industrial peak), the town reunites a variety of housing typologies (individual dwellings, blocks of flats), which used to reflect also the social status of the inhabitants. Preserving its unitary Socialist Realist design along the communist period, the town stays in contrast to mono-industrial towns of medium sizes such as Hunedoara, which offered ground for the manifestations of various planning models. The paper aims to examine Dr. Petru Groza town in the context of urban planning theories and practices in Romania and the rest of the Eastern Bloc, pointing out to the relevance of ‘small scale’ industrial towns for such discussions.
The attention towards the study of the 20th century industrial realms in the Romanian context has... more The attention towards the study of the 20th century industrial realms in the Romanian context has grown in last 25 years, together with the revival of the preservation practice in the post-communist era. However, research and documentation processes are occurring at a slower pace than the disappearance of the industrial heritage, where the pressure of deindustrialisation, globalization and real estate speculation overcomes the growing trends in behaviour, and in the individual social awareness and civic duties in the matters of cultural heritage. Often, the archives disappear together with the industries they relate to. Thus, strategies for the identification of accurate and detailed documentation are fundamental in broadening the variety of research sources.
The case of the ex-metallurgic town of Hunedoara is an example of this issue. Positioned in south-west Transylvania, Hunedoara represents a landmark for both Hungarian and Romanian history, being directly linked with the mid-18th/late 19th iron and steel industries development in the eastern territories of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. During the second half of the 20th century, in the years of the communist hyper-industrialisation (1947 – 89), Hunedoara became a ‘national metallurgic icon’ increasing its size tenfold in the span of a few years, with profound territorial and socio-economic changes. The status of the town changed during the post-1989 political and economic shifts, when deindustrialisation led to the industrial site’s almost complete demolition, making a symbol of ‘Romanian decay’ out of it. Its disappearance was also directly linked with the territorial reclaim projects for the area (2007, 2010 – 2014), when the call to depollution was unanimous approached through massive demolitions that resulted in major voids in the urban layout and in the local identity.
In this article, the research methods employed will be discussed, together with the variety and diversity of sources used in the study of Hunedoara’s 20th century industrialization process, with particular attention to its industrial architecture and to the context that led to its own disappearance. While the historic archives represented the main source of documentation, a major role was played by photographic surveys done throughout the 20th and beginning of the 21st century. Thanks to this complementary source was in fact possible to fill the gaps left by the disappearance of heritage being even faster than how their documentation could be accomplished. Photography of industry, both during the construction and deconstruction phases, made possible to identify and analyze the individual industrial structures, architectures and infrastructures, together with their territorial impact.
Uploads
Papers by Oana Tiganea
In this context, the research puts focus on the Romanian industrialisation during Communism when it represented the trigger of all social-economic and territorial changes, but with particular attention to its industrial architectural manifestation as distinctive theme of the architectural practice of those years. Furthermore, following the moment of Communism’s fall in 1989, the research addresses also the impact of the post-socialist shifts on the industrial architectures and their perception from patrimonial point of view.
All these aspects were chosen to be analysed through the case study of Hunedoara, a Transylvanian town with a metallurgic industry already dating the 19th century, which during the Communism became an epitome of the 1945 - 89 industrialisation, but also an ‘experimental designing laboratory’ in matter of industrial architecture planning. However, in present day, Hunedoara represents a paragon of the deindustrialisation impact on metallurgy, bringing forward the issue of the recent past’s fast material disappearance.
The research, through the plural contextual reading and interconnection of various documentation sources, intends to bring forward the material architectural history of Hunedoara industrialisation during the 1945 – 89, interpreted so far strictly trough its political aspect, while the analysis of nowadays Hunedoara intends to rise further questions and debates concerning the approach of industrial heritage dating the recent past, especially in a context in which the ‘steel landscapes’ are threatened by complete disappearance.
and community, the second edition of
the industrial heritage workshop held this year
in Anina focused on the identification, creative
interpretation and general assumption of the
identity elements as basis for the sustainable
regeneration of the area.
Aprofundând colaborarea cu administraţia
publică şi lucrul cu comunitatea locală, ediţia
a doua a Atelierului de patrimoniu industrial
desfăşurată anul acesta la Anina s‑a
concentrat pe identificarea, interpretarea
creativă şi asumarea generală a elementelor
identitare ca bază pentru regenerarea sustenabilă
a zonei.
Our proposal intends to focus on the first theme of the workshop, in the desire to identify a methodology regarding the actual and future transformations of the area. Identifying the possible interventions grades at both architectural and urban level of such a heritage represents one of this study’s goals.
The area is characterized by a predominant continuity of the residential character found also today. In this moment, due to the city’s development dynamics the residential area is facing mainly external pressure regarding its functionality. Therefore the need to understand how it would be possible to regulate and coordinate, through a good acknowledging process, all the possible transformations which will actually define a new phase in the life of the buildings and of the area as an assembly. The comparison with various similar European case studies is considered to be necessary. This in order to identify and underline similarities with the studied area from Bucharest, and its own special characteristics and limits.
Books by Oana Tiganea
Conference Presentations by Oana Tiganea
This aspect will be analysed through the case of the industrial heritage considered nonetheless a vulnerable typology of the 20th century built environment, but widely associated in Romanian context with the Communism due to the 1945 – 89 hyper-industrialisation process that shaped territories and communities. More precisely, the town of Hunedoara represents such a ‘Communist metallurgic icon’ (Goga O., 1969) despite its complex and multi-layered industrial development starting with 19th century. Its status changed in the post-1989 context when under the visible effects of deindustrialisation and its almost complete demolition became labelled as symbol of ‘Romanian decay’ (Andresoiu L., 2007).
Therefore, the attention will be directed towards the post-1989 destiny of this industrial territory through the analysis of the economic and urban revival mechanisms initiated here, of the actors involved in them and their impact in the local perception of the industrial legacy in parallel with the development of the legal framework in matter of heritage preservation. Hunedoara also illustrates a case of conflict and duality in matter of perception of industrial heritage between the academic world and decisional reality: while in the first environment Hunedoara’s industrial history gained multidisciplinary attention (Ioan R. 2007, Marginean M. 2013, Tiganea O. 2013), the latter context is dominated unanimous by its perception in matter of non-value and thus destined to perish.
Hunedoara case brings forward a common feature of Romanian context in which the disappearance of derelict industries occurs at a faster pace than the change in attitude and growth of social awareness and civic duties. But this material disappearance generated a wave of identity revival of the local community and re-connection with the industrial past.
At the beginning of the Cold War such sites were developed to serve Soviet interests in Romania’s infrastructure, supplies (raw materials) and military industrial branches. A case in point was the town of Dr. Petru Groza, constructed in the vicinity of a uranium mine in north-western Romania. Other examples included Victoria (chemical industry) and Hunedoara (steel industry), both situated in Transylvania and both developing industrial facilities previously used by the Germans during the Second World War.
In a context of Soviet control and implementation of the centralized system, these urban settlements reflect on one hand the specific city planning approach promoted by the Communist leaders in the 1950s, and on the other the dilemmas faced by the architects given the reorganization of their profession. While in one case planners followed the principles of the ‘garden city’ (Hunedoara) during late 1940s, others were the direct implementation of the Soviet model based on the aesthetics of Socialist Realism (Dr. Petru Groza, Victoria).
This paper intends to examine the Romanian territory during the 1950s in terms of Cold War geopolitics, and thus, to bring into scholarly attention significant case studies rarely analyzed in the existing literature. From the perspective of urban history, it can be argued that they defined a new urban concept in Romanian context – the factory town ("oraşul uzinã" in Romanian) - which from late 1950s became the base of the national territorial systematization.
Another peculiar result of the Soviet-inspired models of industrialization and urbanization at the beginning of the Cold War were smaller-scale industrial towns, located in areas rich in natural resources (usually in Transylvania). A case in point was the town of Dr. Petru Groza, nowadays Ștei, constructed during the 1950s in the vicinity of a uranium mine in north-western Romania. Given the strategic interest of the Soviets in the uranium exploitation, the entire building process was surrounded by secrecy. The site was under close supervision of the secret police, and the new town did not even appear on the maps until the late 1970s. Needless to say, the publication of any information regarding its urban design and architecture was inconceivable. The town was initially built for Soviet and Romanian specialists, while the exploitation work was partially performed by convicts, housed in barracks.
Starting with 1952, Dr. Petru Groza town was established as a new settlement with an urban layout and architectural features based on the aesthetics of Socialist Realism: three main composition axes (boulevards) connect the socio-cultural facilities (sport and leisure, schools) with the political-administrative ones (the uranium mines administration, theatre, hospital), while the dwellings in various typologies are distributed in a green area along these boulevards. Even if of small dimensions (approx. 10,000 inhabitants in its industrial peak), the town reunites a variety of housing typologies (individual dwellings, blocks of flats), which used to reflect also the social status of the inhabitants. Preserving its unitary Socialist Realist design along the communist period, the town stays in contrast to mono-industrial towns of medium sizes such as Hunedoara, which offered ground for the manifestations of various planning models. The paper aims to examine Dr. Petru Groza town in the context of urban planning theories and practices in Romania and the rest of the Eastern Bloc, pointing out to the relevance of ‘small scale’ industrial towns for such discussions.
The case of the ex-metallurgic town of Hunedoara is an example of this issue. Positioned in south-west Transylvania, Hunedoara represents a landmark for both Hungarian and Romanian history, being directly linked with the mid-18th/late 19th iron and steel industries development in the eastern territories of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. During the second half of the 20th century, in the years of the communist hyper-industrialisation (1947 – 89), Hunedoara became a ‘national metallurgic icon’ increasing its size tenfold in the span of a few years, with profound territorial and socio-economic changes. The status of the town changed during the post-1989 political and economic shifts, when deindustrialisation led to the industrial site’s almost complete demolition, making a symbol of ‘Romanian decay’ out of it. Its disappearance was also directly linked with the territorial reclaim projects for the area (2007, 2010 – 2014), when the call to depollution was unanimous approached through massive demolitions that resulted in major voids in the urban layout and in the local identity.
In this article, the research methods employed will be discussed, together with the variety and diversity of sources used in the study of Hunedoara’s 20th century industrialization process, with particular attention to its industrial architecture and to the context that led to its own disappearance. While the historic archives represented the main source of documentation, a major role was played by photographic surveys done throughout the 20th and beginning of the 21st century. Thanks to this complementary source was in fact possible to fill the gaps left by the disappearance of heritage being even faster than how their documentation could be accomplished. Photography of industry, both during the construction and deconstruction phases, made possible to identify and analyze the individual industrial structures, architectures and infrastructures, together with their territorial impact.
In this context, the research puts focus on the Romanian industrialisation during Communism when it represented the trigger of all social-economic and territorial changes, but with particular attention to its industrial architectural manifestation as distinctive theme of the architectural practice of those years. Furthermore, following the moment of Communism’s fall in 1989, the research addresses also the impact of the post-socialist shifts on the industrial architectures and their perception from patrimonial point of view.
All these aspects were chosen to be analysed through the case study of Hunedoara, a Transylvanian town with a metallurgic industry already dating the 19th century, which during the Communism became an epitome of the 1945 - 89 industrialisation, but also an ‘experimental designing laboratory’ in matter of industrial architecture planning. However, in present day, Hunedoara represents a paragon of the deindustrialisation impact on metallurgy, bringing forward the issue of the recent past’s fast material disappearance.
The research, through the plural contextual reading and interconnection of various documentation sources, intends to bring forward the material architectural history of Hunedoara industrialisation during the 1945 – 89, interpreted so far strictly trough its political aspect, while the analysis of nowadays Hunedoara intends to rise further questions and debates concerning the approach of industrial heritage dating the recent past, especially in a context in which the ‘steel landscapes’ are threatened by complete disappearance.
and community, the second edition of
the industrial heritage workshop held this year
in Anina focused on the identification, creative
interpretation and general assumption of the
identity elements as basis for the sustainable
regeneration of the area.
Aprofundând colaborarea cu administraţia
publică şi lucrul cu comunitatea locală, ediţia
a doua a Atelierului de patrimoniu industrial
desfăşurată anul acesta la Anina s‑a
concentrat pe identificarea, interpretarea
creativă şi asumarea generală a elementelor
identitare ca bază pentru regenerarea sustenabilă
a zonei.
Our proposal intends to focus on the first theme of the workshop, in the desire to identify a methodology regarding the actual and future transformations of the area. Identifying the possible interventions grades at both architectural and urban level of such a heritage represents one of this study’s goals.
The area is characterized by a predominant continuity of the residential character found also today. In this moment, due to the city’s development dynamics the residential area is facing mainly external pressure regarding its functionality. Therefore the need to understand how it would be possible to regulate and coordinate, through a good acknowledging process, all the possible transformations which will actually define a new phase in the life of the buildings and of the area as an assembly. The comparison with various similar European case studies is considered to be necessary. This in order to identify and underline similarities with the studied area from Bucharest, and its own special characteristics and limits.
This aspect will be analysed through the case of the industrial heritage considered nonetheless a vulnerable typology of the 20th century built environment, but widely associated in Romanian context with the Communism due to the 1945 – 89 hyper-industrialisation process that shaped territories and communities. More precisely, the town of Hunedoara represents such a ‘Communist metallurgic icon’ (Goga O., 1969) despite its complex and multi-layered industrial development starting with 19th century. Its status changed in the post-1989 context when under the visible effects of deindustrialisation and its almost complete demolition became labelled as symbol of ‘Romanian decay’ (Andresoiu L., 2007).
Therefore, the attention will be directed towards the post-1989 destiny of this industrial territory through the analysis of the economic and urban revival mechanisms initiated here, of the actors involved in them and their impact in the local perception of the industrial legacy in parallel with the development of the legal framework in matter of heritage preservation. Hunedoara also illustrates a case of conflict and duality in matter of perception of industrial heritage between the academic world and decisional reality: while in the first environment Hunedoara’s industrial history gained multidisciplinary attention (Ioan R. 2007, Marginean M. 2013, Tiganea O. 2013), the latter context is dominated unanimous by its perception in matter of non-value and thus destined to perish.
Hunedoara case brings forward a common feature of Romanian context in which the disappearance of derelict industries occurs at a faster pace than the change in attitude and growth of social awareness and civic duties. But this material disappearance generated a wave of identity revival of the local community and re-connection with the industrial past.
At the beginning of the Cold War such sites were developed to serve Soviet interests in Romania’s infrastructure, supplies (raw materials) and military industrial branches. A case in point was the town of Dr. Petru Groza, constructed in the vicinity of a uranium mine in north-western Romania. Other examples included Victoria (chemical industry) and Hunedoara (steel industry), both situated in Transylvania and both developing industrial facilities previously used by the Germans during the Second World War.
In a context of Soviet control and implementation of the centralized system, these urban settlements reflect on one hand the specific city planning approach promoted by the Communist leaders in the 1950s, and on the other the dilemmas faced by the architects given the reorganization of their profession. While in one case planners followed the principles of the ‘garden city’ (Hunedoara) during late 1940s, others were the direct implementation of the Soviet model based on the aesthetics of Socialist Realism (Dr. Petru Groza, Victoria).
This paper intends to examine the Romanian territory during the 1950s in terms of Cold War geopolitics, and thus, to bring into scholarly attention significant case studies rarely analyzed in the existing literature. From the perspective of urban history, it can be argued that they defined a new urban concept in Romanian context – the factory town ("oraşul uzinã" in Romanian) - which from late 1950s became the base of the national territorial systematization.
Another peculiar result of the Soviet-inspired models of industrialization and urbanization at the beginning of the Cold War were smaller-scale industrial towns, located in areas rich in natural resources (usually in Transylvania). A case in point was the town of Dr. Petru Groza, nowadays Ștei, constructed during the 1950s in the vicinity of a uranium mine in north-western Romania. Given the strategic interest of the Soviets in the uranium exploitation, the entire building process was surrounded by secrecy. The site was under close supervision of the secret police, and the new town did not even appear on the maps until the late 1970s. Needless to say, the publication of any information regarding its urban design and architecture was inconceivable. The town was initially built for Soviet and Romanian specialists, while the exploitation work was partially performed by convicts, housed in barracks.
Starting with 1952, Dr. Petru Groza town was established as a new settlement with an urban layout and architectural features based on the aesthetics of Socialist Realism: three main composition axes (boulevards) connect the socio-cultural facilities (sport and leisure, schools) with the political-administrative ones (the uranium mines administration, theatre, hospital), while the dwellings in various typologies are distributed in a green area along these boulevards. Even if of small dimensions (approx. 10,000 inhabitants in its industrial peak), the town reunites a variety of housing typologies (individual dwellings, blocks of flats), which used to reflect also the social status of the inhabitants. Preserving its unitary Socialist Realist design along the communist period, the town stays in contrast to mono-industrial towns of medium sizes such as Hunedoara, which offered ground for the manifestations of various planning models. The paper aims to examine Dr. Petru Groza town in the context of urban planning theories and practices in Romania and the rest of the Eastern Bloc, pointing out to the relevance of ‘small scale’ industrial towns for such discussions.
The case of the ex-metallurgic town of Hunedoara is an example of this issue. Positioned in south-west Transylvania, Hunedoara represents a landmark for both Hungarian and Romanian history, being directly linked with the mid-18th/late 19th iron and steel industries development in the eastern territories of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. During the second half of the 20th century, in the years of the communist hyper-industrialisation (1947 – 89), Hunedoara became a ‘national metallurgic icon’ increasing its size tenfold in the span of a few years, with profound territorial and socio-economic changes. The status of the town changed during the post-1989 political and economic shifts, when deindustrialisation led to the industrial site’s almost complete demolition, making a symbol of ‘Romanian decay’ out of it. Its disappearance was also directly linked with the territorial reclaim projects for the area (2007, 2010 – 2014), when the call to depollution was unanimous approached through massive demolitions that resulted in major voids in the urban layout and in the local identity.
In this article, the research methods employed will be discussed, together with the variety and diversity of sources used in the study of Hunedoara’s 20th century industrialization process, with particular attention to its industrial architecture and to the context that led to its own disappearance. While the historic archives represented the main source of documentation, a major role was played by photographic surveys done throughout the 20th and beginning of the 21st century. Thanks to this complementary source was in fact possible to fill the gaps left by the disappearance of heritage being even faster than how their documentation could be accomplished. Photography of industry, both during the construction and deconstruction phases, made possible to identify and analyze the individual industrial structures, architectures and infrastructures, together with their territorial impact.