Sunteți pe pagina 1din 40

Liceul de Arte "Marin Sorescu"

CRAIOVA

CERTIFICAT DE
COMPETENTE
PROFESIONALE
PROIECT DE
SPECIALITATE
Filiera vocationala
Sectia: ARHITECTURA. Proiectare de arhitectura
Titlu:

PROIECTARE

PREZIDENTIALA

RESEDINTA

Elev: DUMITRU ANDREI-BOGDAN


Clasa aXII-a B
-promotia 2016-

Indrumator: Prof. Arh. POPESCU RADUGABRIEL


1.Argument
PROIECTARE ANSAMBLU STRUCTURAL
-RESEDINTA PREZIDENTIALA realizata cu suportul tehnologiilor verzi, ecologice, in
stransa concordanta cu mediul ambiant
proiectarea va fi bazata pe tehnicile folosite in arhitectura
contemporana,

manipuland

atat

materiale

si

structuri

novative ce au caracter nepoluant, dar integrand si elemente

sintetizate ale arhitecturii nationale romanesti. ("Stilul


national romanesc-Arhitectura si proiect national")
Pornind

de

la

conceptul

"BIG

IDEAS,

SMALL

BUILDINGS"(idei mari, cladiri mici), potentat de manifestul *"Think


globally, act locally"(gandeste / inoveaza la nivel global, actioneaza /
aplica local - in acord cu partitura arhitecturii traditionale), propun
reinventarea ideei de resedinta prezidentiala, de edificiu oficial, al
carui concept strctural este trasat in prezent de numeroase tare:
monumentalitate, singularitate, opulenta, grandoare, exclusivism.
Astfel, in contextul unui anabolism arhitectural din ce in ce mai
dispersat atat in stl cat si in concept ce ameninta sa metastazeze in
peisajul arhitectural al Bucurestiului, incercam o abordare diferita, in
care cladirile sa fie in principal orientate catre oameni, catre
simplitate, bun gust, in acord cu natura si in disonanta cu
megastructurile existente ce servesc ca spatiu locativ si oficial pentru
administratia prezidentiala, precum siturile de la Palatul Otroceni sau
Piata Constitutiei-Palatul Parlamentului.
Propunerea mea vizeaza constructia unui ansamblu de cladiri
multimodale, care sa serveasca mai multor functiuni indispensabile
administratiei prezidentiale: spatiu de protocol, birouri de lucru,

spatiu pentru SPP(Serviciu de Paza si Protectie), spatiu de conferinte,


spatiu

locativ(locuita

unifamiliala).

Ansamblul

avand

ca

tinta

integrarea intr-un plan mai amplu de reurbanizare a capitalei va fi


amplasata intr-o zona limitrofa centrului aglomerat al capitalei, in
sud-vestul Parcului Herastrau, adicent cu Soseaua Kiseleff, Piata
Arcul de Triumf si Bulevardul Constantin Prezan.
Suprafata este de aproximativ 21 500 de metri patrati, cu o arie
construita de maxim 2000 de metri patrati.
Piesa centrala va fi locuinta unifamiliala destinata familiei
prezidentiale. Acest volum va fi alcatuit in principal dintr-o prisma
triunghiulara regulata dreapta cu sectiunea verticala un triunghi
isoscel. Suprafata vitrata in doua ape (pante) va alcatui o o mare
parte din din desfasurarea peretilor, incercand o complementarite omcladire-ambianta/peisaj (Parcul Herastrau; Arcul de Triumf-edificiu
reprezentativ - in asonanta cu cea mai inalta demnitate a Statului
Roman si marcanta pentru ceea ce reprezinta persoana Presedintelui
Republicii, care este si comandantul suprem al armatei).
Prin natura functiei sale, Presedintele Romaniei desfasoara mare
parte din activitatea sa in complementaritate cu cea a Guvernului
Romaniei, fiind astfel mai mereu prezent la cladirea sediului
Guvernului(Palatul Victoria) de pe Calea Victoriei nr. 1. Amplasarea

resedintei sefului statului in arealul din spatele Arcului de Triumf, pe


parcelarea din zona sud-vestica Parcului Herastrau desfasurata paralel
Soselei Kiseleff, la numai 2 km de Palatul Victoria, faciliteaza astfel
deplasarea cea mai optima in conditii de maxmia siguranta a
membrilor

administratiei

prezidentiale

pe

singura

axa

longitudinala(Soseaua Pavel Dimitrievici Kiseleff, de la Piata Arcul


de Triumf la Piata Victoriei).

*Rene Dubos, advisor to the United Nations at the Conference on


the Human Environment, 1972

1.1Think big, start small

xs

What does it mean to be green? While the premise of "XS" was


always about buildings that are kind to the natural screen, it was
never meant to be exclusive. If we are to grow the movement to
save the Earth, we need to be a broad church, one that welcomes
new ideas. "XS" both in its incarnation and in this green guise, was
inspired by the possibilities of divergent thinking, by the way that a
small project can take the weight of inventiveness much better in
many respects than a megastructure. We've all been drawn to the
tactility, accesibility and out-and-out cuteness of small structures, but
we've also seen how something used in a limited space can have
much larger repercurssions. Nowhere is this more important than in
the fight to preserve and to repair our natural environment.
This urgency cries out for all comers; idea merchants, no matter
what their chosen form, need to be recognized and encouraged. In
the process of assembling this work, I looked at projects that were
energy efficient, that were constructed using materials with lowembodied energy or were recycled. I wanted a project that was not
only about building well, but seeing well, observing the natural
world through a particularly well-focused aperture; those that draw

us in then throw the world open, or refine our vision to appreciate

what is right in front of us.

Seeing the world well is also about seeing ourselves better. In

this I felt that "green" extended to a humanitarian theme. Buildings


that help take care of people, temporary shelters or low-cost building
alternativer, often go hand in hand with buildings that are
ecologically friendly. If we think about it, we have to conclude that
the biggest, most expensive buildings are not usually the most
humane. So buildings that look after people can also be the ones that
look after the Earth.
There are many ways of what it means to be green and,
thankfully many proposed solutions. It is a problem of huge import
to our generation, but if the projects I studied are anything to go by,
it is not a challange that has stumped our more inovative minds.
Certainly architects of larger projrcts have been grappling eith
environmental issues for some time. Norman Foster's Commerzbank
in Frankfurt am Main, often described as the world's first ecological
high-rise, was designed with hanging gardens and a vast central
atrium that aids natural ventilation, something not usually associated
with soaring office blocks. Other projects like HOK's Federal Reserve

building, in Minneapolis, U.S. demonstrates how investment in


energy efficient materials, such as triple-glazed windows with argon
gas cavities, can produce reductions in energy consumption.
Technology aimed at adressing environmental impact is also
advancing, with IT programmes being developed that can analyze a
building's energy needs as early on as in the design phase.
In my research I ran into a wide and varied spectrum of
approaches to building in a way that both minimizes damage to and
supports our natural environment. Some demonstrated more obvious
alternatives than others. All represent ways of designing, building
and

viewing

the

world

that

enhance

our

knowledge

and

understanding. Such a diverse display of ingenuity as I encountered,


not to

mention the many that I couldn't approach, represents an

imaginative capability that must surely portend hope for the future.
That hope rest on the will of many and the ingenuity, perhaps
even the brilliance of a few. In design term, at least, there appears to
be no shortage of inspiration, no paucity of determination on
methodology. What is needed in ensuing stages is the will. Perhaps
by nothing some of the more exciting possibilities available we can
go some way toward inspiring that will, even if we start small.

2.2The view from outside

follies, gazebos, windows to the world

In the past the structures ere meant to be visual delights, tinged


with or wholly ruled by fantasy, bestowed by clever anachronism
with the charm of age, the hazy appeal of an enchantment. They
were

mini-palaces of escape for the wealthy, located on vast

estates, summerhouses to shade an arstocratic picnic lunch, a shelter


for an elaborate garden party. Tea houses served a similar function,
but for a highly refined, orchestrated ceremony. Garden temples were
not so much for worship as for the mimicry of worship, playing at
penitence. They may have been inspired by the primitive hut, but
increasingly such follies carried expectation of retreat, of the
woodland sanctuary surrounded by greenery. Was this an escape to
nature, or from it?
If the primitive hut originated with man's effort to shield himself
from nature, then the garden pavilion represents the desire to go
back into the landscape, albeit in some comfort. The pavilion brings
us outside, but also focuses out attention outward, since from inside at least in 21st-century versions - the focus is outward. The point is

to place ourselves out of doors, positioned as sheltered observers.


Are we only observers? Can we do anything to enhance the land we
occupy, or we are doomed to mark the view bt our very pressence?
These are questions that the green garden hut adresses. For
some, camouflaging our intrusion is the answer, but for most of the
projects included here, there is more to the pavilion than being well
hidden.
These structures celebrate the man-made form in the natural
context, as that form contributes to the appreciation of the outdoors.

2.3.Touching the earth lightly

lightweight, compact, portable

To touch the earth lightly was a desire expressed by Australian


architect Glen Murcutt, citing Aboriginal philosophy. It is a theme
that has resonance across the world. Since we as humans must
inhabit the planet, we can only hope to minimize our negative
impact. Making something significant within self-imposed spatial and
even weight limits presents a challenge to designers and architects.
Weekend gateways are not the most green structures that an
environmentally concious designer can put his or her mind to; by

definition they represent an excess of money and materials.


Vacationing is then many of us actually engage with nature,
however, so these buildings present a good oportunity to highlight
environmental concerns.

2.4. Poetic utility

small forms that function beatifully

If form married with funtion always produced bonny offspring,


then we would have little reason to remark on a job well done.
However, we know from inaccible phone booths, unpleasant public
toilets and inhospitable bus shelters that structures built to
funciton(and sometimes they do not even meet this criteria well) so
not always do so in a way that is unpleasant to behold. Yet we
know how uplifting it can be to experience functional forms that do
their job well. How positive it must feel to enter Marlon Blackwell's
HoneyHouse*, for example, to appreciate the produce of the colony
and the practical and graceful form of the building itself, all working
in concert to a glorious harmony.
Harmonizing with the environment, too, is a footbridge* in the
Swiss Alps that help hikers and walkers navigate the awe-inspiring

terrain with little interruption to the natural visual rhythm of the


countryside. Construction in aid of human interaction can also be
green, even if designed for urban sites. The architect of the HALO
phone brooth, Lance Hosey*, has ohten addressed the environmental
responsibilities of architects both in his designs and through his
writing. He is concerned with building in a way that optimizes use
and minimizes waste, creating space that meets our advanced
technological needs and embracing that technology to get the most
efficiency out of the building process.
From the marriage of form and function to marriage of legal
and human sense, the architecture of Klein Dytham* in Japan is that
of ceremony and celebration. Perharps functionalis not the most
romantic description for a wedding chapel, but the design answered a
brief to serve a particular purpose, with a simple practical focus, as
well as, of course, other less tangible requirements in the areas of
romance and beauty. From union to reunion, matrimonial bonds to
dissolving political difference - weighty obligations for a slight
structure* by Bruckner&Bruckner that attempt to reconcile the
formerly divided cultures of Germany and the Czech Republic,

separated physically and psychologically during the decades of the


Cold War.
Can architecture bring unity? It can most surely help, as
Cohen&Judin's comprehensive plan for the disparate elements of the
Nelson Mandela Museum makes clear. Through a series of modest
pavilions that serve as information points and communal shelters, the
architects created a project that includes and promotes community.
Of course, buildings that serve the natural environment possess green
credentials at the outset. But Matali Crasset's bold and beguiling
pigeon loft* does so with remarkable aplomb, sensitivity and
adherence to the needs of humas and animals alike.

3.1.A praise for the Romanian traditional


architecture.
- National project The majority of authors dealing with the concept of nation
confirms its modern, built and voluntary character. To quote the
famous formula of Benedict Anderson, the nations are an "imaginary
community": "it isn't a given history that makes a nation, but a

nation, once built, invents its history which, apparently, would have
founded it. It is not a given language, which reunites peolple within
a nation, but the nation once constituted,

elaborates a standard

language, which is then imposed to all its members. The modern


ways of care to link all component segments in a centralized
communication network... Whilst nowadays nation's roots are cut, in
the past, the roots were pushed far into prehistory".
National identity would need to reflect the essence of a nation;
often this essence was shown through nationalistic symbols, which
were considered synthesis of the unique threats of its people. The
symbolic language used by the elite in the discourse on national
identity is essential for instilling the patriotic spirit and the idea of
unity and national identity amongst people. National identity is built,
but material culture is the vehicle whereby the nationalistic discourse
is released. Within this process, the majority of new nations tries to
create a specific architectural style too. Wheter these nations aim to
assert their own autonomy, to distance themselves from the powers
around or to claim cultural hegemony in a particular region, all
regard architecture as axis mean to declare unique cultural identity.

In terms of architectural history, some styles are consciously


created as a symbolic rhetoric in order to make visible a nationalist
ideology. These styles are called national styles and are set out to
create what would be considered to constitute an architectural
tradition of its people. In his influential article entitled "The
Invention of tradition", Eric Hobsbawn demonstrates that traditions
are often built by intellectuals or men of state and legitimated by a
false historical continuity, but, in fact, they are new or relatively
recent creations. Hobsbawn defines the term "invented tradition" as
"a set of practices...whose aim is to inculcate certain values and
norms of behavior by repetition which automatically implies
contnuity with the past" and gives the example of the use of neoGothic styles with the aim of suggesting continuity with a period
considered
glorious and authentic in terms of national identity. The past to
which it refers is often manipulated , and historical continuity is
obstinately sought even in the absence of any evidence.
In Romania, nationalist ideas are influenced both by the French
model, and by the Herman model. According to the Grench model, it
tries to create a nation-state and the nation is conceived to have as

base an ethnic community that shares some Volkgeist. Romania's


political situation was different from the situation of those countries
that created, in the same period, national styles in architecture and
fine arts. At the end of the 19th century, Romania was already an
independent state, although a veru recent one, and fif not aspire to
show cultural specificity within a grea empire, as was the case in
Hungary, Poland or Finland. For this reason, the national style in
architecture does not appear as a reaction to a dominant cultural
model, and the interest in vernacular does not reflect opposition to
"high art" promote by the art academies. Also, there is no need no
mythologise a specific refion whereby inhabitants would have kept a
more authentic national identity and whose artisitc profuction was to
form the basis for developing a national style, as Hungarian
architects draw inspiration from Hungarian Szeklers'architecture in
Transylvania, or Finnish architects from the rural world of Kareliei.
Nonetheless, the pursuit of a foreign model like France is initially
integrated as part of national dicourse: France and Romania are sister
countries, both of "Ginta Latina", enough to claim a strong
connection with the Occident. The desire to express the connection
and, thus provide evidence of Romania's cultural superiority to the

non Latin neighbours, determines the emulation of the French model,


in an attempt to demonstrate the ability of modern Romania to
compare itself with the so-called developed countries of Europe.
The evolution of Romanian cultural identity is deeply marked by
the duality between Orient-Occident that derived from the association
to its Latin origins and with its Orthodox religion: "What improves
our value abroad, are not the external forms of an important
civilization bigger than we can assimilate, but what distinguishes us
from other nations, in terms of the level of originality with which we
currently join the civilized nations. Our Othodox faith is today the
strongest criterion of differentiation, for we are the only Latin people
in the world to belong to the orthodox faith. This happy union
between the Latin blood and noble qulities which come from the
Orient, enhances the value of our nation", writes Sextil Puscariu.

3.2The Romanian national architectural style:


1886-1918
Around 1880, Alexandru Orascu urged architects towards:
"Study the remains - no matter how small - of the artistic creations
and use them as origins of a mighty art... don't miss any opportunity

to use artistic elements found in the Roumanian monument left from


the past, but transform, change and embellish them!"
During that period there were not many Roumanian architects;
the large majority of edifices were built by foreign architects. The
first generation of Roumanian architects trained abroad, preffering
Ecole de Beaux-Arts in Paris, where they were sent after the
proclamation of independence through scholarship programs whereby
the new state thanks to the first generation of certified architects, in
1892. Even after the academy had been founded, many architects
studied abroad due to the familiarization opportunities of the
tendencies in vogue of the time: ancient architecture, which promoted
a formal eclecticism, "discovery" of medieval, vernacular and oriental
architecture as inspirational sources for architectural tendencies
towards picturesque. Amongst the first generation of architects
educated in Paris there were Ion Mincu, Ion N. Socolescu, Alexandru
Savulescu, George Sterian, Stefan Ciocarlan, who created the
Romanian architectural style starting largely from ancient and
aesthetic eclecticism promoted by Ecole de Beaux-Arts. On the other
hand, the interest displayed by these architects would be shown in
vernacular architecture and applied arts, but also in their wish to

invent, manifested initially at a decorative level, followed by need to


create modern and functional spaces, thus bringing closer the art
creations of the first decennia of the national style movement with
the European phenomenon in the Art of the 1900.
The starting premises of these architects were that a Romanian
national style can be elaborated through the interpretation and
synthesis of formal elements considered to be traditionally and
specifically Romanian. Such formal and specific Romanian elements
are indentified in the beginning among the old heritage architecture,
which is discovered and studied by art historians and architects at
the same time. This heritage is, initially, represented by the
Walachian architecture of the 18th century and the Moldavian
architecture during the reign of Stephen the Great which is to a large
extent exclusively religious architecture, partly justifiable by the fact
that not many examples of secular medieval architecture were
preserved. The mixture of architectural elements dating from the
15th and respectively, the 18th centuries was not considered
problematic, therefore the history of Romanian architecture has not
been perceived as an evolution of

different styles, more of a succession of isolated and independent


moments, the most brilliant amongst them being those of Stephen the
Great (Northern Moldavian monasteries: Putna, Voronet, Sucevita,
Moldovita, Dragomirna >1457-1504<) and Constantin Brancoveanu
(The Hurezi Monastery, 1679; Casa Baniei, Craiova, 1699; Palace at
Mogosoaia, 1702; The Stavropoleos Church, 1724).
Therefore, by combining elements originating in Moldavian
architecture with elements originating in Walachian architecture, the
outcome is more "Romanian". On the other hand, the interest in
religious architecture is certainly determined by the fact that the
Orthodox faith is intimately related to the idea of "Romanian spirit"
shown in the local culture of architecture.
The architecture from the time of Serban Cantacuzino (16781688) and Constantin Brancoveanu (1688-1714) is characterized by
a mixture of traditions of Byzantine and post-Byzantine origins with
influences of the occidental Baroque encapsulated in contemporary
Ottoman architecture and manifested primarly in carved decoration.
Columns and twisted belts, high relief, which separates the columns
of porches and turrets, windows and frames with vegetal and
zoomorphic motifs, sawed railings, multicolored medallion under the

cornices of churces make up the main source of developing a new


decorative vocabulary in the late nineteenth century.
A part of this refined vocabulary and an exceptional case of
demoestic architecture also was the new wing of the Cotroceni
Palace, erected at the wish of the Princess and the future Queen
Mary of Romania. Great admirer of Art Nouveau and passionate
about Byzantine and ancient Romanian art, Mary had already
participated in the decoration of the Pelisor summer residence. Mary
wrote in her Memoirs: "By the time I had learned all about the
architecture of the contry... from then onwards, began my desire to
adapt the old Romanian style to our modern uses, to redevelop a
national art that was being forgotten, and buried beneath innovations
come from Occidental countries. This became a real passion, and I
can truthfully say that I was the instigator of quite a new epoch of
architecture and style in my adopted country. It needed the eye of a
princess that come from afar to bring before their eyes the beauty of
their national art." In fact, her only command in national style was
the enlargement of the Cotroceni Palace (the actual residence of the
Presidential Administration), but thi commnand had a major
importance. The northern wing of the Cotroceni Palace was built by

Grigore Cerchez in two phases, between 1913 and 1915, and


between 1925 and 1926.
The architects' dedication for the prestigious models he adressed is
visible in the design, too: much as for the facade of Higher School
of Architecture Cerchez had copied almost literally the loggia of the
Brancoveanu Palace from Mogosoaia; for Cotroceni he made a
replica of the watch tower built by Dionisie Balacescu for the Hurezi
Monastery in the 18th century.
In order to become "National", the National style had to express
the "Romanian spirit" at the same extent as its previous models.
Hence, the development of the National style echoed the theories
concerning the local features during past centuries and, in the 30s,
the peasant tradition was chosen by the architects as a main inspiring
source, alongside the medieval heritage.
Most of the theoreticians valued the National style as a modern
one, since it stood as the alternative to the (mainly French)
Eclecticism. But in the inter-war era, the simple quotation of the
medieval past or of the rural tradition did not stand anymore as a
straightforward national trait, so that National Style's legitimacy as
truly national fell frequently under debate. Another issue at stake had

been its capacity of fulfilling contemporany demands. While the


defenders of Modernist architecture disliked the historicism of the
National style, its supporters accused Modernist architecture either of
lacking aesthetic qualities, or of being practiced by non-Romanians,
hence a completely foreign Western influence forcing its way and
attacking the tradition, thus harming the "Romanian spirit" itself.
The controversy developed alongside similar issues concerning
the national spirit in the literature and the arts, so that change in the
National style at this time echoed the shifting paradigms in the
historiography of Romanian architecture, a field where the identityoriented rhetoric had focused on understanding this artistic heritage
as the multiform expression of the "Romanian spirit". If, until that
moment, the history of Romanian arhcitecture had been seen as a
concatenation of independent chronological suquences, one notices
from that moment on the birth of a "History of the Romanian
Architecture", nurtured by the ideas of continuity, coherence and
homogeneity.
`

From the earliest years, in the second half of the 19th century,

the history of the architecture built on Romanian land meant a


"history of Romanian architecture". Historians were thus censed to

find in the local heritage not only some influences of the foreign
civilizations, but the Romanian spirit.
On the first stage, the history of "Romanian architecture" was
imagined as a sequence of independent laps of time, in which
various foreign influences melt together in an original "style",
considered to be Romanian. A quite restricted group of monuments
were selected from the past heritage, on the criteria of their
"originality" and "authenticity", qualities which dignify them as
"expressions of the Romanian spirit". Those privileged monuments
princeps for several successive buildings, thus giving birth to a style
in architecture; the monuments are copied and interpreted until the
"copy" resembles so faintly its "original" that the "style" dies out.
Then another monumentum princeps comes into the light, one that
has little to do with monuments from previous intervals, but which
opens

another

"style".

Those

"styles"

gain

life

and

grow

independently in Walachia and Moldavia, and there are a few


connections between the architecture of the two states. The
"Romanian spirit" was considered to express itself better during the
times of "rebirth of the national spirit", hence the tradition of
proclaiming the heroes of national history as founders of "styles" in

architecture. The history of Romanian architecture has been thus


"reconstructed" until the second decade of the 18th century, when
"style" sequence stops, as there are no later monuments which might
prove to be genuine Romanian since the Otoman Empire was
imposing the Phanariot rulers and foreign influences took the lead.
In their quest for those typically Romanian subjective features,
architects and historians in between the World Wars identified them
again within the peasant's art. Peasant art and architecture fill in the
gap between the second half of the 18th century and the birth of the
National style, becoming a part of the "tradition" which thus
develops freely from the Middle Ages to contemporary times. Even
the influent French art historian Henry Focillon was seduced by such
interpretation and wrote that Romanian peasant, art stands as a
unique instance of continuity with the medieval art and that it might
be analyzed from the same methodological bias, since it links the
Brancoveanu style to modernity.
Until the third decade of the 20th century the interest in
vernacular architecture, which dominated Mincu but then diminished
as the National style became monumental, was manifesting itself
only in superficial instanecs such as the decorative carved wood

elements or the steep eaves. Assuming that the tradition which


claims for further development is characterized by much subtler
features than the mere formal inventory, the architects from the Interwar period created a style which simultaneously aims to be
"modern", "functional" and "Romanian", and thus the National style
has been saved from its early wrong orientations and become able to
withstand the promoters of Modernist architecture, who were
criticizing its lacking of structural logic and its pompous abuse of
decorations.

4.1.Soseaua Kiselef
Acest traseu ne va conduce de-a lungul a doua celebre "sosele"
bucurestene, cunoscute astazi sub denumirea de Pavel Dimitrievici
Kiseleff si Aviatorilor. Spun "astazi", pentru ca ele au purtat in trecut
mai multe denumiri, dupa cum voi puncta in anexele ce vor urma.
Axe principale ale partii de nord a capitalei, cu larga deschidere,
marginite de alei umbroase, ritmate de ronduri, avand, la inceput si
la sfarsit cate o ampla piata, aceste bulevarde au fost cunoscute
odinioara, si in buna masura au ramas asa si astazi, drept locuri de
plimbare spre care s-au indreptat cu predilectie pasii bucurestenilor
iubitori de liniste si de aer curat. Muzee celebre, elegante
monumente de for public, interesante palate, somptuase resedinte

particulare, toate inconjurate de verdeata constituie tot atatea locuri


spre care ne vom indrepta cu admiratie privirea.
Traseul se desfasoara in mod cronologic in concordanta cu
aparitia si dezvoltarea celor 2 artere, dar si a complexelor
rezidentiale pe care le strabate. Astfel, pornind din Piata Victoriei,
vom strabate la inceput Soseaua Kiseleff, continuand pana dincolo de
Arcul de Triumfla Muzeul National al Satului "Dimitrie Gusti", dupa
care urmarind aleile Parcului Herastrau si ocolind apoi Piata Charles
de Gaulle vom intra pe Bulevardul Aviatorilor; la jumatatea
bulevardului ne vom abate la stanga spre a cunoaste mai indeaproape
istoriile unor case aflate pe teritoriul fostelor parcelari Filipescu,
Bonaparte si Dorobanti, pentru a reveni la acelasi bulevard si a ne
indrepta, in final, spre Piata Victoriei, adica la puntul de unde am
pornit.
Rondul III al Soselei este dominat de impunatorul Arc de
Triumf, un edificiu cu adevarat emblematic al capitalei. Primul Arc
de Triumf arata cu totul altfel (planurile le trasase arh. Petre
Antonescu) decat cel de astazi. Inaugurarea avusese loc la 16
octombrie 1922 cu ocazia proclamarii Unirii tuturor romanilor.
Fatadele de nord si sud erau decorate cu opt statui de ipsos ce

intruchipau tipuri de soldati romani de-a lungul istoriei, de la


indepartatul Decebal pana la primul razboi mondial. Materialele
utilizate atunci - lemn si stucatura - nu erau durabile, astfel ca intre
1935-1936, dupa nu putine controverse, monumentul a fost refacut
din beton si piatra in forma pe care i-o cunoastem, cu fatadele sale
impunatoare impodobite cu numeroase inscriptii si basoreliefuri. Pe
fatada sudica sunt doua medalioane ce infatiseaza portretele refelui
Ferdinand si al reginei Maria. Pe traseul expus mai sus se continua
in lungul Soselei Kiseleff, de data aceasta urmand la dreapta Aleea
Romanesti, inainte de Muzeul Satului, putem arunca o privire asupra
Palatului Elisabeta. Dupa cum o arata si numele, palatul a fost ridicat
pentru printesa Elisabeta (1894-1954), fiica cea mare a Reginei
Maria si a Regelui Ferdinand I, sora a lui Carol al II-lea, efemera
regina a Greciei. Un palat realizat in stil spaniol-maur, dupa planurile
arhitectului Corneliu M. Marcu si inaugurat solemn la 12 octombrie
1937 unde avea sa se consume actul abdicarii regelui Mihai I in
decembrie 1947, ultima piedica in calea instaurarii depline a
cutremuratoarei epoci de "democratie populara". Astazi palatul se afla
din nou in proprietatea Regelui Mihai I, servind drept resedinta
membrilor familiei regale.

4.2.Obiective culturale. Traseul Kiselef

- Fresca si sinteza de arhitectura romaneasca 1. Sediul Guvernului - Palatul

Victoria; Piata Victoriei nr. 1, sect.

1
1937 ; arh. Duiliu Marcu
2. Muzeul de Istorie Naturala "Grigore Antipa"; Sos. P.D. Kiseleff
nr. 1, sect. 1
1904-1908 ; arh. Grigore Cerchez
3. Muzeul Taranului Roman; Sos. P.D. Kiseleff nr. 3, sect. 1
1912-1941 ; arh. Nicolae Ghika-Budesti
4. Muzeul National de Geologie; Sos. P.D. Kiseleff nr. 2, sect. 1
1906-1908 ; arh. Victor Stefanescu
5. Scoala Generala nr. 11 (fosta Scoala Comunala); Sos. P.D.
Kiseleff nr. 5, sect. 1
Cca. 1896 ; arh. Giulio Magni
6. Biserica Izvorul Tamaduirii - Mavrogheni; Str. Monetariei nr. 4,
sect. 1
1785-1787
7. Parcul Kiselef; Sos. P.D. Kiseleff f.n. sector 1
1843-1847 ; peisagist Carl Meyer
8. Bustul lui Leonard Naia; Sos. P.D. Kiseleff f.n. sector 1
Sculpt. Oscar Han

9. Statuia lui Omar Khayyam; Sos. P.D. Kiseleff f.n. sector 1 in


Parcul Kiseleff
10. Monumentul Infanteriei Romane; Sos. P.D. Kiseleff f.n. sector 1
in Parcul Kiseleff
2000 ; sculpt. Ioan Bolborea
11. Bustul poetului Ovidiu; Sos. P.D. Kiseleff f.n. sector 1 in Parcul
Kiseleff
1927 ; sculpt. Corneliu Virgiliu Medrea
12. Bustul lui Barbu Stefanescu Delavrancea; Sos. P.D. Kiseleff f.n.
sector 1 in Parcul Kiseleff
1920 ; sculpt. Corneliu Virgiliu Medrea
13. Ansamblul George Apostu; Sos. P.D. Kiseleff f.n. sector 1 in
Parcul Kiseleff
14. Casa Doina (Bufetul de la Sosea); Sos. P.D. Kiseleff nr. 4,
sect. 1
1892 ; Arh. Ion Mincu
15. Vila principesei Adina Woroniecki; Str. Ion Mincu nr. 19, sect.
1
1940 ; arh. Alexandru Zaharia
16. Vila Vasile Ganescu; Sos. P.D. Kiseleff nr. 9, sect. 1
1901 ; arh. Ion D. Berindei
17. Palatul Kiselef; Sos. P.D. Kiseleff nr. 17, sect. 1

1910, amplif. si transf. ulterioare ; arh. Grigore Cerchez


18. Vila Toma Stelian; Sos. P.D. Kiseleff nr. 10, sect. 1
1914 ; arh. Ion D. Berindei
19. Hotelul Triumf, fostul Bloc al Functionarilor BNR; Sos. P.D.
Kiseleff nr. 12, sect. 1
Prima jum. sec. XX ; arh. Petre Antonescu
20. Casa Mirea-Miclescu; Sos. P.D. Kiseleff nr. 35-37, sect. 1
1902
21. Casa Nicolae Titulescu; Sos. P.D. Kiseleff nr. 47, sect. 1
Inceput de sec. XX
22. Vila Florica Chihaescu; Sos. P.D. Kiseleff nr. 49, sect. 1
1930-1931 ; arh. Marcel Iancu
23. Vila Tudor Hagi Theodoraki; Sos. P.D. Kiseleff nr. 57, sect. 1
Sfarsit sec. XIX ; arh. Toma Dobrescu
24. Arcul de Triumf; Piata Arcul de Triumf f.n. sector 1
1936 ; arh. Petre Antonescu
25. Palatul Elisabeta; Sos. P.D. Kiseleff nr. 26 (acces din Intr.
Romanesti), sect. 1
1937 ; arh. Corneliu M. Marcu
26. Muzeul National al Satului "Dimitrie Gusti"; Sos. P.D. Kiseleff
nr. 28-30, sect. 1
1936
27. Parcul Herastrau; Piata Charles de Gaulle f.n. sect. 1; 1936

28. Aleea Cariatidelor; Parcul Herastrau, sect. 1


1939 ; sculpt. Constantin Baraschi
29. Statuia generalului Charles de Gaulle; Piata Charles de Gaulle
la intrarea in Parcul Herastrau
2005 ; sculpt. Mircea Spataru
30. Crucea Mileniului; Piata Charles de Gaulle f.n., sect. 1
Sculpt. Paul Neagu
31. Muzeul Krikor H. Zambaccian; Str. Muzeului Zambaccian nr.
21 A, sect. 1
Prima jum. sec. XX ; arh. C.D. Galin
32. Muzeul memorial "Prof. Dr. Victor Babes"; Str. Andrei
Muresanu nr. 14 A, sect. 1
Prima jum. sec. XX
33.

Statuia

monseniorului

Vladimir

Ghika;

Str.

Gheorghe

Demetriade nr. 16, sect. 1


1998 ; arh. Gheorghe Anghel
34. Monumetul Eroilor Aerului; Piata Aviatorilor f.n., sect. 1
1935 ; sculpt. Iosif Fekete si Lidia Kotzebue
35. Vila Nicolae Malaxa azi Institutul Cultural Roman; Aleea
Alexandru nr. 38, sect. 1
Cca. 1930 ; arh. Petre Antonescu
36. Vila Constantin D. Busila; Str. Rabat nr. 1, sect. 1

1932-1933 ; arh. Duiliu Marcu


37. Vila Ion I. Florescu, azi Ambasada Poloniei; Aleea Alexandru
nr. 22, sect. 1
Prima jum. sec. XX ; arh. Dimitrie Harjeu
38. Monumentul Aerului (Mircea Zorileanu); Piata Quito f.n. sect. 1
1937 ; sculpt. F. L. Gove
39. Muzeul National al Hartilor si Cartii Vechi; Str. Londra nr. 39,
sect. 1
Prima jum. sec. XX
40. Vila Filipescu Brancoveanu; Aleea Modrogan nr. 1, sect. 1
1908-1916 ; arh. Roger Bolomey
41. Casa Ioan Manu (fosta Auschnitt); Aleea Alexandru nr. 1, sect.
1; 1915 ; arh. Grigore Cerchez
42. Institutul de Istorie "Nicolae Iorga"; Bd. Aviatorilor nr. 1, sect.
1
1939 ; arh. Petre Antonescu
43. Bustul lui Nicolae Iorga; Bd. Aviatorilor nr. 1, sect. 1
1976 ; sculpt. Ion Irimescu
44. Casa Mihai Ormolu; Bd. Aviatorilor nr. 8, sect. 1
1926-1927 ; arh. Petre Antonescu

7.BIBLIOGRAFIE
"XS GREEN. Big Ideas, Small Buildings", Thames & Hudson
Ltd. ; London, 2007. Designed by Grade Design Consultants

"The Romanian National Style - architecture and national


project", Ada Stefanut, Adrian Manafu. NOI Media Print,
Bucuresti 2015

"Art and the National Dream: the Search for Vernacular


Expression in Turn-of-the-Century Design", Dublin, Clolour
Books, 1993 - Gordon Bowe, Nicola, ed.
"Pentru

renastere

arhitecturii

romanesti",

Academia

Romana, 1939 - Petre Antonescu


"The Invention of Tradition", Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 1992 - Eric Hobsbawm

"Bucurestiul intr-o zi", Asociatia Culturala Goodartofnoon, 2013

"Arhitectura-1906 * 100 de ani de arta a peisajului" - Revista

Uniunii Arhitectilor din Romania. Nr. 5 (647)/2013

"Arhitectura.

Privire

generala

asupra

arhitecturii

antice,

medievale, moderne si romanesti. Scrisa pe intelesul obstesc.


Editie de popularizare", Bucuresti, Avantul - Institut de Arte
Grafice, 1916 - Ion D. Traianescu

"Imagini ale identitatii nationale", Bucuresti, Meridiane, 2001 Laurentiu Vlad

"Cultura

si

nationalism

in

Romania

Mare,

1918-1930",

Bucuresti, Humanitas, 1998 - Livezeanu Irina

"Estetica oraselor si infrumusetarea lor din punct de vedere


urbanistic", Bucuresti, Cultura Nationala, 1927 - Duiliu Marcu

"Traditie si modernism in arhitectura romaneasca", Editura


Universitatii "Ion Mincu", Bucuresti, 2002 - Georgica Mitrache

"Petre Antonescu - 100 de ani de la nasterea sa", in


Arhitectura-1906, nr. 5/1976 - Grigore Ionescu

"Parks and palaces: How monarchy reign over public space",


in Bentley, T.&Wilson

"Art

and

International

Design

Apects

in

Romania
of

the

1866-1927.

Search

for

Local
the

and

National

Expression", East European Monographs, Colombia University


Press, 2006 - Shona Kallestrup

"Ioan Mincu, 1852-1912", Bucuresti, Cultura Nationala, 1928 Nicolae Petrascu

CUPRINS
1.
2.

ARGUMENT
FAZE

CONCEPTUALE

DOCUMENTARII
2.1. Think big, start small
2.2. The view from outside

2.3. Touching the earth lightly


2.4. Poetic utility

SI

ANALIZA

3. SINTEZA STILULUI ARHITECTURAL TRADITIONAL


ROMANESC

SI

RACORDAREA

PROIECTULUI

LA

SPECIFICUL LOCAL
3.1 A praise for the Romanian traditional architecture
-National project-

3.2 The Romanian national architectural style 1886-1918


3.3 Integration of high-level contemporary structures in
the Bucharest's landscape and tradition
4.

INTEGRAREA IN SPATIUL URBANISTIC


4.1. Soseaua Kiseleff
4.2

Obiective culturale. Traseul Kiseleff -Fresca si

sinteza de arhitectura romaneasca5.

TEHNICA PROIECTARII

6.

ANEXE

7.

BIBLIOGRAFIE