Talk:Bucharest/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Old comments

"it was originally a fortress, erected on the site of the Daco-Roman Thyanus"

I couldn't find any clue about a Roman fortress near Bucharest in any other source than 1911 Britannica. Anyway, it sounds like a Bart Simpson joke made up by the Britannica encyclopedists: "Thy-anus" :-).

Was Bucharest erected on the site of Daco-Roman "Yourass"? Bogdan 07:52, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, Uranus Hill is one of the names of the hill torn down to build the Casa Republicii / Palatul Parliamentului / Casa Nebunului. (p.s. I don't know which has more names, the building or the hill it replaced). Joe

Joe Mabel: Removing anon contribution: "In 2002, Bucharest's GDP per capita was around $19,000." Simply wrong: number way to high & a city doesn't have a "GDP".

Actually, the number is not too high according to this article in Romanian. And AFAIK, GDP can be calculated for a region or even a city. After a google I found [1] a UK government page with GDP statistics for areas in Cornwall. Bogdan | Talk 09:05, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Interesting, on a few counts (I'd never heard the term GDP applied except at a national level, but "produsul intern brut" is certainly an equivalent expression). Hard to say what to make of the refeerenced article, though. It's all percentages, no hard dollar/euro figures. GDP for Romania gets tricky, because the exchange rate is so extreme: if you denominate GDP in dollars or euros, it is perhaps one quarter of what it is if you denominate in ability to buy goods and services locally. Still, this number seems awfully high: even using a cost-of-living-based GDP, I've never seen a number for Romania that was even a third of this, and I have doubts whether the GDP in Bucharest is really three times that of the rest of the country as a whole.
No question, though, that "apropie de 50 la suta din media UE" means "about 50% of the EU median", which probably would be in the range of the $19,000 figure given. Still, if Bucharest is at 50%, and the rest of the country ("fara a lua in considerare Bucurestiul") is at 22-23%, that would mean that even outside Bucharest the per capita GDP is about $7500, again a much higher figure than I've ever heard elsewhere.
The GDP figures varies because of the method they are calculated. It seems that here around in wikipedia, the CIA factbook figures are used and there it says that it's $7600 ("purchasing power parity"). [2]
It's weird that there are no hard figures on money in the referenced article. when there are on infant mortality.
Maybe we should put something on GDP in our article, referencing this article in Romanian as a source?
OK.
Still, I suspect a good search would find other sources that contradict it.
(That article might also be worth mining for the Romania article: many of the socio-economic comparisons to the EU are interesting.) -- Jmabel 20:51, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Portrayal in film and fiction

I've started a new section in the article. So far, it just contains three films I happen to know about. I imagine there is quite a bit else that could be added. Are there some classic Romanian novels that constitute portraits of the city? -- Jmabel 08:39, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

For Bucharest during the interwar period I recommend "Calea Victoriei" ('Victoria Road') by Cezar Petrescu. -- Mentatus

I hope you all don't mind me added the info about Jack Chick :) -Chuck K8CPA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K8CPA (talk • contribs) .

We don't mind, but could you provide some references? Mihai -talk 22:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Economy

Don't compare a urban area to a sum of urban an rural area, like regions. of course you'll get faboulos results. Please compare bucharest to cluj and timisoara in Romania & paris, milan, frankfurt, budapest and much more in the EU. Just look for a classement of european cities (not capitals) to find out Bucharest real state. Nu vă lăudaţi cu ce nu aveţi. --ro.Danutz | pt.Danutz Vive o 2004!

but still very close to other urban areas in the rest of Romania
Do you have any reference/statistics that says this ? Bogdan | Talk 13:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Transportation

Some of this is getting awfully detailed (and awfully opinionated, though I think reasonably on the mark). I'd say to transwiki to WikiTravel, but unfortunately the licenses don't match. Maybe clean up and separate some of this out to an article Transportation in Bucharest? BTW, what is it supposed to mean that commuter trains are hard for foreigners "to come by"? "Hard to come by" means "hard to find", as in "There was a book about that 30 years ago, but a copy would be hard to come by." -- Jmabel | Talk 01:03, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC).

  • I've edited out the reference to Angel Airlines. There are over a dozen private Romanian airlines operating from Baneasa, of which BlueAir seems to be the biggest at the moment. As such, reference to only one company appears as advertising 195.7.0.159

Mayor

So who is the new mayor? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:53, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Răzvan Murgeanu (interim, a new election should be organized, according to the law, in the next six months). Bogdan | Talk 19:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New mayor is Adriean Videanu, and he has been sworn in office (according to the law, 48 hours after confirmation of electoral results). (anon 13 April 2005)

Bucharest Plaza

Recently added "Bucharest Plaza". Is this something new? I've never heard of it. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. It is a new mall, bigger than "Bucureşti Mall" and it was opened last autumn. Bogdan | Talk 20:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not "Bucharest Plaza". It's "Plaza Romania". Just another kitsch-of-a-shopping-mall, very similar to Bucuresti Mall. Same shops, same products, same "hi-life", same shareholders, nothing to see, almost nothing to buy. Same old, same old. (anon 13 April 2005)

I see that article now says "Plaza Romania". Is it really that, rather than "Plaza România"? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:52, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

The weak status of the Romanian leu...

The weak status of the Romanian leu in international exchange rates makes it difficult to compare economic product of Bucharest to that of the European Union countries.

This does not make any sense to me. What have to do the exchange rates with the economic product ? Bogdan | Talk 09:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because the domestic purchasing power of the leu greatly exceeds its foreign-exchange purchasing power. Thus a Romanian earning an annual income that has an international exchange value of US$3000 has a tremendously higher purchasing capacity than that number suggests to someone in, say, France. Different calculations of Romanian GDP vary by as much as a factor of four, depending on whether they are evaluating in terms of international exchange rate, domestic purchasing power, or some combination of the two. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:02, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

This has surfaced again

This has surfaced again, where a chart shows Economy - GDP per capita (2005) - $20,057. That is probably correct based on purchasing power parity, but is high by about a factor of four in terms of exchange rate. I'll try to add an explanatory note. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

GDP/budget statement

I'm no expert in economy, but given a 21% of GDP, how can you get to 66% of the budget? Also, quoting that same article:

Pe primul loc se situeaza, de departe, Bucurestiul – unde se colecteaza peste 50% din taxa pe valoare adaugata si impozitul pe profit la nivel national, precum si o buna parte a celorlalte taxe si impozite care ajung la bugetul de stat
Bucharest is by far the leader - over 50% of the VAT, income tax and a great deal of the other taxes that make up the state budget are collected there -- approximative translation (serial comma)

Maybe I'm wrong, but that article is the only mention of that fact I've heard, combined with the above, make me doubt the truth of that statement. (Yes, I know it doesn't have to be true to be on Wikipedia, but still :-)) --gcbirzantalk 23:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See this paragraph: Cel mai mult contribuie la veniturile publice Capitala. Aici locuiesc si muncesc aproximativ 10% din români. Ei asigura, prin taxele si impozitele platite, aproape doua treimi din bugetul de stat. Bogdan | Talk 23:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that (searched the page for Bucure, didn't turn out anything ) only a minute ago, but I still stand by what I said, the numbers don't really add up. --gcbirzantalk 23:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Speaking not from any specific knowledge of Romania in this respect, but from general world patterns, relatively prosperous cities almost always pay disproportionate taxes. At the other extreme, peasant farming contributes modestly to the GDP, but hardly at all to the tax base. It is also possible that, because most multinationals in Romania are in the capital, they are paying even more disproportionate taxes. It's also possible, depending on the tax structure (which I don't know much about) that certain industries concentrated in the capital are disproportionately taxed. There could be other factors like that. I'm not saying that the statement in the article is correct, only that it's plausible. Anyway, since there are clearly several of you with native Romanian involved, I leave it to you to pick apart the cited source. I was just attempting cleanup on what was already there. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:41, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have a joke: One guy walked into a hardware store and asked for some book-rests. The guy he was talking to was slightly deaf and said "I'm sorry. Book-rest's the capital of Romania." :-) Scott Gall 09:00, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

I keep thinking the capital was Budapest, and that Bucharest was in Hungary. [[User:NazismIsntCool|

Nazism isn't cool]] 06:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

"There is no such place as Budapest. Perhaps you are thinking of Bucharest, ...and there is no such place as Bucharest, either." -- Robert Benchley

Population 2.3 mil?

The last census says just under 2 mil.

Duca 06:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Citation? -- Jmabel | Talk
  • The Romanian Statistics Institute ([3]), that conducted the 2002 census gives the following data : 1.926.334 (2002), 1.934.449 (2003 est.), 2.001.009 (2004 est.). User:Xanthar 18 July 2005
    • Geez, there is a lot on that site. Can you point to the particular page where you found this? I tried googling 'site:http://www.insse.ro "populatie" "bucuresti"' but that didn't turn it up. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:26, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • For 2003 [4] , the chapter is "Populatie". For 2004 I simply couldn't find it anymore (I remember I had to dig a lot for the figure)... They're VERY unorganized... Their data is in pdf format, but it's scanned from paper (I wonder why), this making the search even harder... --Xanthar 20:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The Roma Gypsy population is only 1.4%? This area has more Gypsies than any other part of the world and they only make 1.4%? that is wrong —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.187.154.33 (talk • contribs) 25 June 2006.

City of Joy ?!?

I've lived 30 years in Bucharest.Nobody calls it "The City of Joy", where the hell did this come from?

I removed this absurd line : "for this reason Bucharest is often called "The City of Joy" Stefan Udrea 11:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

In fact, you are wrong: Bucureşti: Bucur/Bucurie (Joy in Romanian) + eşti, popular ending of city names. The city of joy. Simple. I knew it since I was a small kid...I think you should put back that line. 65.94.15.108 19:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a nickname of Bucharest used to be (in the 18th century), "Hilariopolis". google it! :-) bogdan 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Recently added city guide

Recently added: Psst! - A Bucharest guide with a twist.

I don't think this should be here. It looks like all you can get without registering is uninformative "teaser" paragraphs at the beginning of articles. I'll allow a couple of days for someone to explain why we should link to this, but if no one makes a good case, I'm inclined to delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:03, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Removing. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Photos

One of the 2 photos showing dance clubs should be replaced with a photo of the circus (Circul de Stat) building.

Stefan Udrea 23:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Got one? I'm sure it would be welcome. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


What's with the bum in the picture of the Opera building? I go to the Opera every couple of weeks, and I don't recall seeing a vagrant in the area in a *long* time. Now if you were to portray him in a picture of the secondary subway lines, that'd be a different thing.

OK. I removed it. Maybe I'll go and take a better pic myself this week. bogdan | Talk 14:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Romany name

I'm not sure whether it's relevant here. According to the last census, only 5,300 (0.2%) Bucharesters spoke it as native tongue, about the same number of Hungarian speakers in Bucharest...

Also, "Bukureshta" is most likely not correct. IIRC, Romany spelling in here does uses "sh", but s with an accent instead. It would be better that someone that speaks the local dialect also check the ending "a". bogdan | Talk 12:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a standard alphabet does exist: Romany alphabet, that has the letters "ś" and "š", but it's not clear which would be used in here. bogdan | Talk 12:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


To reach featured status

Great work here recently by Ronline and others. This is now a very solid framework.

I see two many things standing between this and featured status:

  • The article is solid, but lacks "grace notes". There is no sense of the variety of the city, its glories or its problems. I'd be interested in working with others to start a tentative list of what could be added in that respect.
  • Almost nothing is cited. Is anyone interested in starting to find citations for this material?

-- Jmabel | Talk 01:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Well, my aim is to get this article up to featured status (this is my second attempt, after the Căile Ferate Române article, which is currently featured. I think this article does need citations, I'm working on that now. As to grace notes, what specifically do you mean? I agree that the article doesn't really talk about the city's lifestyle or character. Is that a standard section in city templates? Secondly, I think we need a few more photos in the Law and government section - at least a photo of the City Hall or Prefecture, and of a Bucharest surface transport vehicle (preferably a nice-looking one, either bus, tram or trolleybus) in the Transport section. The Image Gallery should be expanded a bit with miscellaneous photos. My next article to work on will be Transport in Bucharest, though I'm waiting for the formation of the Bucharest Metropolitan Transport Board (early 2006?) before that can get up to featured status. Ronline 02:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
You might want to look at existing featured articles on cities: Ann Arbor, Michigan, Bath, Boston, Massachusetts, Canberra, Chennai, Cleveland, Ohio, Gangtok, Gyeongju, Hong Kong, Johannesburg, Kalimpong, Louisville, Kentucky, Marshall, Texas, Mumbai, Newark, New Jersey, San Jose, California, Sarajevo, Seattle, Washington. (Wow, looking at the list, they are nearly all in English-speaking countries, especially if you count India as English-speaking).
It's not like the flavor of the place is a separate section, it's a matter of threading it through the article. Take Seattle, for example: compare the second paragraph of that article to anything in the lead of this one. Or, in the Government and politics section, the remarks about jails and crime. Or a section like Annual cultural events and fairs: superficially almost a list, it manages to suggest many aspects of the city's life and its diversity. You could probably do something similar in Bucharest by talking about, for example, the diversity of the city's public markets, or its street food, or its parks, or the differences between the northern and southern parts of the city, or the changes to the look of the city as small businesses and advertising signs returned in the wake of the 1989 Revolution, or the repurposing of many communist-era buildings, or even stray dogs, homeless children, and aurolaci. Or the streets themselves, ranging from wide boulevards to lanes more suitable for walking, some well-maintained and some with potholes that could swallow a child, some modern, others cobbled… Not that one can get all of this into an article, but one can get some of it. (On the Seattle article, BTW, I'm frustrated that performing arts and sports keep wanting to grow at the expense of neighborhoods or politics. Then again, we've probably "incubated" dozens of articles in that Seattle article and then moved them elsewhere. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I propose that we add two new sections:
  • One related to arts, culture and nightlife (i.e. Culture section), where we talk about Bucharest and the arts - opera, visual arts, theatre, dance, ballet, etc, as well as the information on nightclubs etc, and culture in general, annual events, festivals, etc. Street food, etc. Bucharest's ethnic communities should also be featured - Hungarians, Jews, Chinese, etc (there's the Jewish Theatre, the Chinese Festivals...)
  • AFAIK, the Hungarian community isn't very present in Bucharest. The Chinese community is very discreet (I happen to have some Chinese neighbours) and their Chinatown won't be opened until 2008. The Jews and Armenians do have a longer history, but they no longer many in Bucharest: Armenians were assimilated easily since they shared the religion with Romanians, while the Jews moved to Israel in the 1960s and 1970s. The Jewish quarter was between Unirii and Nerva Traian (where it is the Jewish Theatre). bogdan 10:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't forget the Gypsies, either, probably the city's most visible ethnic minority. As for the Jews, the Armenians, and (I would add) the Turks and possibly even the Greeks: not only minorities that are still present in large numbers are significant in writing about a city. While they are not numerous in the city now, they all certainly left their mark on it. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • A section on architecture, that should look at things firstly from a general perspective of Bucharest's historical architecture, where it occurs, then Bucharest's communist architecture, the re-use of its communist buildings and also a section on Bucharest's economic boom architecture (i.e. the Architects House, the new skyscrapers, etc). There are many photos to accompany this section. Things like the general urban landscape, and its diversity, can be mentioned here.
  • In the transport section, we should add information about roads and all that (traffic jams, etc).
  • Other things you mentioned: differences among the different parts of the city - would Geography be a good section for this? As to Bucharest's urban problems, where should they be put? What section would be appropriate for this (I think making their own section would accentuate the problems too much, especially considering other city articles don't have such sections) Thanks, Ronline 09:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed with the last statement. Still, we can certainly mention size of police force (unusually low, I believe). Yes, Geography would be good for the variety. As for urban problems: I don't have an instant notion of where to put them; maybe history, which allows them to be tied into the events that caused them? For example, the wild dogs can be mentioned in terms of the clearing of land for the Centru Civic, which almost everyone seems to agree played a large, possibly determining, role in that problem. As for homelessness, it probably belongs in demographics. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't the seal of Bucharest be a better picture for the infobox - it's Bucharest's official symbol. I've seen this is the standard on Wikipedia --83.103.179.161 00:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, that would be great. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, that will be done once the infobox is fixed. The seal made the infobox very long and visually-unappealing. Ronline 04:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Media/Architecture

These intersect in an interesting way, not sure which section best to put it in. Probably mention the unfinished Casa Radio, certainly mention the Palatului Telefoanelor (I believe it was the first deliberately modernist building on Calea Victoriei), and the Casa Presei Libere. (former Casa Scânteii) is quite a landmark. Also, which is the late night TV talk show that broadcasts out of a studio with a window onto Calea Victoriei, where you see the late-night street scene in the background? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I worked out a way to sneak in mention of the buildings in the media section. I think it reads smoothly. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

For the gallery, it would be good to get a few Romanian Orthodox churches and a good photo of the Hanul lui Manuc (maybe inside the courtyard? the one at Hanul lui Manuc is a bit too bland to be worth using here). Also, at least one public market (certainly Obor market, but I bet someone who is in Bucharest with a digital camera could also get a great picture at Pantelimon or any of the others), maybe the Odeon Theatre (a beautiful building), and probably at least one modern, upmarket store or hotel. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The TV Show is Naşul on B1TV. Regarding the pictures, I'll see what I can do. --Xanthar 07:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hotel "Opera"
Hotel "Opera"
I uploaded an image of a small hotel downtown Bucharest -- IIRC, it was somewhere near Sala Palatului. bogdan 11:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

To do

The following things still need to be done before peer review (I'm writing this down for me to get organised and for you to know what's happening):

  • Requested media - I've looked all over Flickr for the photos needed for this article and I've mostly found wonderful photos that I've included. However, there are some photos not available anywhere under a free license that are very important to the article. So, the following media are needed:
    • A photo of the Bucharest Prefecture, City Hall and sectorial town halls (any of these would do, all three would be best)
    • A pronunciation recording of Bucureşt in Romanian
    • A supermarket or a shopping centre to put in the Economy section (a Carrefour would do)
    • The files Jmabel talked about: a picture of the Obor Market and a theatre
    • Just a note - the photos should be nice and show the subject favourably :)
If it's sunny, I'll try to go on Monday and take a few pictures, Teatrul Naţional and the City Hall (it's next to Cişmigiu). The Prefecture is located in the same building as the City Hall. bogdan 21:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Architecture section to discuss the different architectures of the city Done.
  • Information about roads in the Transport section Done.
  • More high schools in the Education section Done.
  • Information about differences between different areas in the Geography section (i.e. the character of different districts). Where should the Gardens section be integrated?
  • Integration of Sights & landmarks into other sections (this section should disappear) Done.
  • Stuff about urban issues, what Jmabel proposed - police force, crime, homelessness (where do other cities talk about this stuff? - UPDATE: it should go in Law & Government, as well as information about courts)
  • More info in the Demographics section - see FA city articles
  • Just a question - doesn't the Culture section seem a bit like a travel guide?
  • Another note - I don't think this article needs a gallery. It's much better to integrate photos and then make a link to Commons (which is there). If we just use the gallery for miscellaneous photos, people who go straight to the gallery just to get a general glimpse of Bucharest will see photos that will be nice but will showcase quite unimportant, miscellaneous aspects of the city. So - any photos that people now think "they're nice and should really be in the article" - if they don't fit into any existing section, then a new section or paragraph should be created somewhere to accommodate that photo.
  • Finally, we need a Bucharester to verify all the information and add to some of the remaining sections to make them more well-rounded.
  • Finally finally, we need more references and notes.

Thanks, Ronline 08:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Religion

When we say "96.1% of the population are Romanian Orthodox", is that only counting those who profess a religion? Otherwise, I've met enough atheists in Bucharest to find this statement a bit unlikely. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

In Romanian censuses, "religion" is considered by most as the second field of "ethnicity" field. So, while around 25% of Romanians go to church weekly (in Bucharest it's probably more like 10-15%), in the census we only have 0.1% atheists. :-) bogdan 10:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, what Bogdan says is very true. Many Romanians state they are Orthodox because they see that as a national attribute rather than a purely religious one. Most Romanians are, however, passive adherents - i.e. they paint eggs at Easter, call each other for their saints day, have their wedding in a church, but they don't pray, go to church or even believe in God. As Bogdan says, it's only about 25% of Romanians that actually believe in God and go to church often. People actually declaring they are atheist is very rare (Personally, I declared "atheist" in the census), because Romanians unfortunately see not being Orthodox as not being Romanian. Therefore, we should probably find sources giving church attendance rates or surveys/polls, whatever, to gauge the rate of actual attendance and things like that. Ronline 12:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Chiar dacă se declară religioşi, orăşenii nu merg foarte des la biserică. Doar 2% dintre respondenţi merg zilnic la biserică, 4% merg de mai multe ori pe săptămână, 18% merg o dată pe săptămână Fundatia pentru o Societate Deschisa (large file - 3 MB) -- so we have 24% that go weekly to church, but this is a poll which includes all cities in Romania, not only Bucharest.
However, I expect that the differences between Bucharest and the smaller cities to be large. bogdan 14:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

About the Roadnetwork

Here are some point which could be included in the Road network subsection at Transport:

  • Bucharest has almoast a round shape, centered at Romania's KM 0 near the University square and a radius between 10-12 km (the highway towards Piteşti starts at Km 11.4, because the numbering is made from the city centre - Km0).
  • Main access points:
  • North
  • N1 - Through Băneasa from Ploieşti on DN1
  • N2 - Through Bucureştii Noi alongside the main railconection to Ploieşti on DN1A - the old road
  • N3 - the road from Târgovişte DN7 (I think also through Bucurestii Noi )
  • West
  • W1 - Through Militari Highway A1 from Piteşti
  • W2 - Through Rahova from Alexandria
  • South
  • S1 - From Giurgiu (don't know DN, can't remember the quarter name)
  • S2 - Through Berceni from Olteniţa
  • East
  • E1 - Through Titan Highway A@ from Constanţa
  • E2 - Through Colentina from Urziceni (???)
  • There is one main axis North-South going through the center from N1 to S2 almoast in a straight line.
  • An East-West axis is not so clearly defined.
  • There is an almoast complete NortWest to SouthEast axis along the Dambovita River.
  • There are 2 incomplete rings one internal and one external:
  • The internal ring is made up of a complete arch from North to South on the East part between "Victoriei" Square and "Sudului" Square (Market, Comercial center) (Iancu de Hunedoare Bvd, Stefan cel Mare Bvd, and Mihai Bravu Bvd (the longest boulevard in Bucharest and most likely alsi in Rom)). On the West part the arch is cut by the raillines serving Gara de Nord and also between the Soseaua Viilor and Soseaua Progresului (Nicolae Titulescu Bvd, Sos Orhideelor, Sos Grozavesti, Sos Geniului ,Sos Progresului,Sos Viilor, Serban Voda Bvd,Tineretului Bvd). There are planned projects to close this arch (Basescu's passage from Basarab and a cut through an industrial area at the end of Sos Progresului). The ring is made up of boulevards from 2 to 5 lines on each direction
  • The external ring is made up of an (not so much due to recent developement) exterior road with two lanes, one on each direction, incomplete between W2 and S1 (I think, not sure). The ring is mainly used by trucks on transit which are not alowed in the city so it is generaly either full of potholes, either crowded on the North section where the quality is better. It exist a plan to upgrade it to a 2 lines on each direction (highly unlikely to be finished in the next 5 years).
  • Inside the inner ring the N-S axis is made up of Magheru Bvd, Balcescu Bvd, Bratianu Bvd and Cantemir Bvd. Along tis axes lie the main squares in Bucharest: Victoriei, Romana, Universitate and Unirii. Two E-W axes exist, one crossing the University Sq, the other crossing the Unirii Sq.
  • Outside the inner ring there are about 20 main boulevards disposed radialy. Secondary boulevards connect these main boulevards spaning betwen 2 till 5 consecutive main boulevards.
  • One of the most crouded sections is the West to Nord link connecting the crowded Western quarters (Militari-Drumul Taberei) with the North buissness area. The road system is cut by the main railway line in Bucarest and both the Gara de Nord with only two link points: The Gara de Nord area, extremly crouded and having narrow boulevards, and the Podul Grant bridge.

That's about all I can say about the road system. About the traffic, I have to search some statistics but the number of cars is between 600.000 and 800.000 daily inside the city.

References:

Hope it is helpful -Orioane 19:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

  • That's probably too much detail on individual roads for this article, but it looks like the bulk of an excellent satellite Street layout of Bucharest article to write and link to. Also, Calea Victoriei and B-dul Unirii deserve more prominent mention, not because of transportation but because of their resonance in the city's history. (I suspect that there are others comparably historically important that don't leap into my mind right now.) In this article, I'd want to see more about when the boulevards were built than the kind of detail that is better conveyed by a map. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Orioane, thanks very much for that information. The reason is - after Bucharest, I'm going to work on the Transport in Bucharest article. So, all of that detailed road information should go there, and it should form a very nice article, along with the current information on public transport. In the actual article, we should write a summary of main roads and their positions, about ring roads, about national roads/expressways that link Bucharest to the other parts of the country, how it's the main road hub of Romania, etc. Also, as Joe said, stuff about secondary roads and lanes, and their surface conditions. Then, also numbers of cars. Bucharest's shape and midpoint should be put in the Geography section. Jmabel - I don't think it's important to know about the history of the boulevards in the Transport section :) And we should also mention the Bucharest-Danube Canal currently in planning/construction. I'm writing this section ASAP. Ronline 23:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
BTW, I wrote an article on the canal. See Danube-Bucharest Canal. bogdan 23:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Hope this is better. I prefer to first discuss it and then I'll add it to the page:
Modern Bucharest developed around the first paved road, the "Podul Mogoşoaiei", a long road, built by the prince Constantin Brâncoveanu to link his estate at Mogoşoaia with the center of the then small town. It was built around the year 1700 and was paved with planks of oak wood. For a long time, this remained the main street in Bucharest everithing else developing around it. When the new king, Carol I came, he found a city of small and narrow streets, so that after the independence of 1877 a new city emerged around the old road, renamed "Calea Victoriei". Other streets, or "poduri" as they were known, were renaimed to commemorate this event and those names are still present. On the left side the new names are Calea Plevnei for the old Podul de Pamint, Calea Grivitei the old Podul Tirgovistei, Calea Dorobantilor the old ulita Herastraului, Calea Mosilor the old Podul de Afara and on the right side Calea Serban Voda is the name of the old Podul Beilicului and Calea Rahovei the old Podul Calicilor. The road alongside the river - splaiul Dimbovitei is renamed splaiul Independentii.
By the end of the 10th century the city neded a new impulse for developpement and a new row of streets were cut to link the west of the town where the new royal residence lied (The Controceni Palace) to the Center of town and continued to the east. Thus appeared betwen 1890 and 1894 the Elisabeta bulevard and a new tramway was built runing from the Controceni area to the Obor area. As the city got crowded and the number o automobiles increased it was the turn of the North to South axis to evolve. Betwen the wars the north side of the city was enhanced, the wide boulevards Kisselef and Aviatorilor beind enhanced after the opening of the Herastrau Parc. Also, from the Victoriei Square, a new row of wide boulevards was built parralel to the calea Victoriei up till the Uniri Square creating a new centre for the city.
During the communist regime Bucharest suffered a fast expansion and new quarters were created on boulevards disposed in a divergent way. The old city was delimited by wide boulevards such as the Stefan cel Mare and Mihai Bravu boulevards on the left side of the Dambovita river. After the earthquake of 1977 a new massive project destroied almoast all the old city centre situated on the right side of the river, thus creating the Centrul Civic alongside the Victoria Socealismului boulevard (now Unirii boulevard), a boulevard longer and wider than the famous Champs Elysees in Paris, running from east to west. Also the river was fully chanalised and the road running alongside was widened.
Some references: http://www.bookcase.com/~claudia/mt/archives/000671.html, http://www.geocities.com/carsimus/istoriabucurestiului.html, http://museum.ici.ro/mbucur/romanian/micparis.htm
Waiting to hear from you!!--Orioane 00:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think those paragraphs belong in the Transport section, since that section is designed more to give a snapshot of the road transport situation in Bucharest today. However, your information is very interesting and it needs to be linked from the article somehow. A lot of it would be very useful in the History section, especially the last part. Actually, I think it should be all integrated in either the History of Bucharest article or the summary of that article, which is in the History section of Bucharest. Thanks, Ronline 01:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
In the morning I'll make a mix of the two of them. :D --Orioane 01:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I've written the roads part in the Transport section. I think it's quite comprehensive and that section is quite long by now. It would be good to get a daylight image of a major road or, even better, of the autostrada (expressway) to Constanţa. Ronline 04:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

largest city between Berlin and Istanbul

...making it the largest city between Berlin and Istanbul

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. if it means the largest city between the longitudes of Berlin and Istanbul, it's wrong, as there's Athens, which is larger (about 3 million city proper / 5 million metropolitan area) bogdan 23:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. In fact, Bucharest can only be considered the largest city of the EU accession countries, that's about it. Athens is larger, so Bucharest is second in Southeastern Europe. If we want to maintain old definitions and say it is the largest in Eastern Europe (which has been said, before :), then Kyiv is larger. I'd say a more relevant statement, upon EU accession, would be that it's the 6th largest city in the EU. Ronline 23:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Historical culture section?

I propose that we make a new section that deals with history in Bucharest (i.e. not the history of Bucharest, but historical buildings and precincts in Bucharest), that includes three things currently unincorporated properly into a section:

  • The historical city centre and Lipscani - it's still listed at Sights & landmarks, a section which shouldn't exist, and there are nice photos of this area (esp. Str Şelari)
  • The palaces of Bucharest - Creţulescu and Cotroceni particularly
  • The Museum of Romanian History, which is currently mentioned at Traditional culture but doesn't really belong there

Should this form a separate section within "Culture", or could it perhaps be integrated into a new Architecture section (also in Culture) without including the History Museum (which could be mentioned somewhere else). What do you think? Ronline 07:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

This has now been done. The sights & landmarks section has been abolished (integrated into new Architecture section). Ronline: National Day of Romania 1 December 16 years of freedom and loving it! 09:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Architecture

Generaly this section is better now, so congratulations Ronline!!. I still have some ideeas, which I'll add here to comment upon:

  • At the historical architecture:
    • There is nothing about churches and there used to be plenty of them - that is the oldest architectural element still in existance - a typical Bucharest Church is either Byzantine, or greek or Brancovenesc style, of small size. Today some small old churches still exist such as the Stravropeoleos Church, those two on the Calea Victoriei - in front of the Bancorex building and in teh Revolution Sq, the one near the Hospital in Universitatii Sq.
      • Colţea is the one in Universităţii sq, Creţulescu in Revoluţiei Sq (this one is in a very good shape and has an excelent position), the other one is Zlătari Church. --Orioane 00:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The center - around Calea Victoriei was mainly made up of imposing buildings most of which still exist: The Revolution Square with the Royal Palace (1930s architecture - IMPORTANT not to be forgot), The Atheneum, The Univerity's library; elswere on the CV: The CEC building, The Museum of History, the Military Circle, The Telephones Palace; elswere on the centre: The Justice Palace, the Univeristy, the City Hall. We should choose some of these buildings and add them also.
    • The outskirts - were still small houses but each of them had a small "à la mode" architectural element such as (ro:ghips) ornaments, or a small glass cover in the shape of a shell above the entrance (these were very popular) and one cen see many examples on the smaller streets on the east of the centre (Traian Street, Mantuleasa Street etc.)
  • At the communist period:
    • There were some positive additions up until the 70s: The Opera, The National Theatre, the Intercontinental Hotel, The Sala Palatului.
    • Up until the beginning of the 80s the blocuri quarters had quite a pleasant structure with lot of green spaces between the buildings, but then other buildings were built to "better occupy" the space.
  • Now:
    • There is an article about Bucuresti Mall which can be linked.
    • The most important landmark buildings are: Bancorex Building (the one on the first picture), BRD-GSG Building in the Victoriei Sq, Reiffeisen Building in the Aviatorilor Sq, the Chamber of Commerce Building (for Ronline- the one in the picture with the ship) all of them more than 15 stories tall and other office buildings such as Opera Center, Europa House etc. Also ABN AMRO is in the same building as the WTC so it shouldn't be there!!!
    • The Mariott Hotel - the good taste, practical use of a communist centrul civic type building.

That's about it. --Orioane 12:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the info. I will integrate it in the Architecture section. Another thing - information about climate should go in the Geography section, as should information about variation in the city (i.e. income variation and characteristics between different districts/areas of the city) Ronline: National Day of Romania 1 December 16 years of freedom and loving it! 04:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I would definitely mention Stravropeoleos Church, which is a a gem and very central.
  • I've heard that Creţulescu may not have a good foundation in its current location, and may be in danger from the next earthquake,does anyone one know more?
  • I concur on the buildings on Calea Victoriei. The CEC building is particularly magnificent, probably worth a photo if someone wants to snap one. Calea Victoriei itself probably deserves an article, which would let us go into much more detail about a lot of notable buildings.
  • Question: this is probably more for the Systematization article than for this one, but do any of the native speakers have a come of Biserici osândite de Ceauşescu, Bucureşti, 1977-1989 (Editura Anastasia, 1995)? I have a copy, but I'm afraid it is a very challenging read for me. It is very comprehensive on its topic, and has a lot about systematization beyond just what happened to churches. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about the Creţulescu church, It was heavily restaurated in recent years, and I think it was finished after 2003 but I can't remember exactly. The problem anyway is with the whole centre, and I don't know how many buildings will survive a 6° Richter one. Generaly the buildings are clasiffied and the most endangered ones are marked with a Red Dot - I don't know if this should be added :). About the Calea Victoriei I propose to start an article now and to make a TODO list. --Orioane 10:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Climate

Here's some ideeas:

  • Typical Continental climate, with hot dry summers and cold windy winters.
  • Due to its position in the Romanian Plain usualy winters are very windy, but due to urbanisation, the wind speeds are lower than outside the city (but still strong). Temperatures are generaly under 0C but also due to urbanisation it rarely drops under -10C.
  • In the summer temperatures of over 25C are usual, with extremes up to 30-32C, but with low himidity. Also due to urbanisation, in the city centre during daytime, higher temperatures are normal (35-40C and more).
  • Precipitations in the summer and in the winter are generaly rare, but the quantities are important.
  • Late springtime and early autumn are the most pleasant periods, with lower temperatures (around 18-22C). Precipitations in the springtime and autumn are more common but the quantity of rain per time period is smaller (Help here, I don't know how to express this in a better way).

That's about all I can say from personal experience. --Orioane 18:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this info. It's inserted into the article (Climate section, in Geography and climate). I'm going to find average temperatures and make a climate graph soon. Ronline: National Day of Romania 1 December 16 years of freedom and loving it! 06:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I've found temperature stats at [5] and precipitation stats at [6]. I've inserted the table in the article. I'll also create a climate graph to go alongside the table. Ronline: National Day of Romania 1 December 16 years of freedom and loving it! 06:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Districts Characteristics

Ideeas:

  • The North of the city is considered the most desirable and it is generay a villas region or small (rarely over 4 floors) appartment buildin. - Băneasa, Floreasca, Dorobanţi.
    • Here can be added also there is the Cotroceni area - in the centre.
  • The "Centrul Civic" area is a very desirable area due to the great surface of the appartments and the proximity to the city centre.
  • Then comes the west and the south area of the city which are considered of higher standards due to the presence of large parks, the reasonable quality of the appartment buildings and good public transport connections: Titan, Colentina, Tineretului.
  • Next there are medium desirable areas situated in the East and the South of the city, which are very crowded - Militari, Crângaşi, Dristor, Vitan, Sebastian, Pantelimon, 1 Mai - or further away from the Centre - the extreme south part: Brâncoveanu, Piaţa Sudului - or with bad public transport connections - Drumul Taberei.
  • The ill famed areas: Ferentari, Rahova and most of the peripheries.
  • The city centre is somewhere in the middle - prices are very high, superbe positioning, but appartment quality is very low because most buildings are old and some of them are prone to colapse at a strong earthquake, the area is crowded and there are little or no green spaces.

That's about it. Mabye we could search some statistic data somewhere. --Orioane 23:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"…little or no green spaces": except, of course, Gradina Cismigiu. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Not quite - there is in the East side of Calea Victoriei mainly only Cismigiu, but on the West side, which is considered also the Centre there are parks like Gradina Icoanei (behind the Anclican Church) or in front of the St George Church - at the end of Lipscani St - although it's crouded but it also counts. :D --Orioane 09:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

Although we are still improving the article, and should continue to do so, I think it might be time to place it on peer review; in particular, it will be useful to get comments from people who have never been there. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

One remark I want to make as we head toward FA: Yes, this is a little on the long side, but I think it is turning into a really excellent article, and I think it merits its length. It's really hard to see anything that could beneficially be cut, although perhaps something could be refactored to an article in its own right. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, difficult to cut something. Mabye "Treaties signed in Bucharest" could be, because except the one from 1913 the rest don't have a huge international importance. And also hitory could be a little more condensed, for example the Centrul Civic reference could be removed because it already is more detailed in the Architecture section. Also the list of airlines could be removed because if we state that Bucharest is a big city, it is certain that the most important airlines will flow there. We could say something like this:
The city is served by two airports: Henri Coandă International Airport (formerly Otopeni) and Aurel Vlaicu International Airport (formerly Băneasa). Henri Coandă is the biggest airport in Romania and the main hub for the national operator TAROM. Daily flight connects it to the most important european airports. The smaller Aurel Vlaicu Airport is used for charter flights and low cost carriers.
Also we could merge the two road transport paragraphs like this:
The city's municipal road network is centred around a series of high-capacity boulevards, which generally radiate out from the city centre to the outskirts. The main axes: north-south, east-west and northwest-southeast and the ring roads, one internal and one external, support the bulk of the traffic. The city's roads are usually very crowded during rush hours, due to an increase in car ownership in recent years. Every day, there are more than one million vehicles travelling inside the city.[7] This has resulted in potholes appearing on many Bucharest roads, particularly secondary roads, this being identified as one of Bucharest's main infrastructural problems. In recent years, there has been a comprehensive effort on behalf of the City Hall to boost road infrastructure and according to the general development plan, nearly 2000 roads are expected to be repaired by 2008.[8]
And the Danube-Bucharest Canal is of no great importance because it is not 100% sure it will be finished in the near future. That's about all I had to say! --Orioane 00:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for not writing here recently - I've been involved at Talk:Moldovan language, in that interminable dispute, and I've been on a dialup connection in the past few days. Now, everything's fixed. So - I don't think anything should be condensed as of yet, though I think Orioane's idea about the Transport section is good - it should probably be condensed further, especially the roads section, with the current detailed version moved to Transport in Bucharest (I think it's already there). I also think it's better to only send to peer review after all the sections are done. Ronline ✉ 06:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Asking again, how about peer review? The article has reached quite a good form. Let's post it! Who should do it? --Mihai -talk 01:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Justice, crime and police

I think one of the only remaining parts that needs to be added is one about justice. This should be put at the end of the Law and government section and should include:

  • information about the courts of Bucharest (the municipal courts, the sectorial courts, any specialised courts, as well as national courts located in Bucharest - Curtea de Casaţie, etc)
  • information about police in Bucharest - the number of police officers, the way in which the force is organised, different institutions (Jandarmeria/Politia Comunitară, etc), who manages the police (municipality? sectors?)
  • information about crime in Bucharest - overall level of crime (which is quite low), main types or crime (as far as I know, petty crime is fairly abundant), geography of crime (i.e. where crime occurs, what areas of the city)

Ronline ✉ 11:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK this is it, but we need some references with numbers
  • There are tribunals in each sector, but I am not sure if there is one at the city level (I think not - never heard of one). Also, there is a military tribunal, a civil and military court of appeal (Curte de Apel), and also the main national institution like as you said Inalta Curte de Casaţie, or Consiliul Suprem al Magistraturii are based in Bucharest.
  • The main headquarters of Romanian Police (IGP - Inspectoratul General al Politiei) are in Bucharest (that bulding underneath the Bancorex Tower on the first photo). There is the Bucharest Police on the Stefan cel Mare Boulevard which is responsable for the whole Bucharest (crime, special divisions etc), and there are small police stations (Sectii) throughout the city (proximity police and evidenta populatiei). The road police (Politia Rutiera) is a separate entity, and has recently been divided according to the sector division (funny thing, Universitatii square belongs to 4 sectors and depending on which side one makes an accident he has to go to a different police road section). Each sector has under its administration the Community police (think that the City Hall does not have that) and the Jandarmerie is under the dirrect authority of the Internal Affairs Ministry and is organised at the city level, the same as in every county.
  • Pickpoketing is common on the buses and tramways during rush hours, especialy on the crouded periphery lines. Beggars are quite frequent and there are quite a lot of childrens begging (there are speculations about the existence of professional underground networks). During nighttyme recenly illegal roadraces have appeared on the periphery boulevards. Police have managed recently to fight against some crime clans - Camataru, etc. but generaly organised crime keeps a very low profile (not like Bulgaria). There are ocasional turbulences in the quarters with a great number of roma population (Ferentari, Giulesti and the outskirts) but usualy police acts very quicly and there haven't been mass confruntations in recent period. Institutional corruption is the biggest problem, and it is considered somewhat higher than the rest of the country.
I'll try to find some statistics tonight. --Orioane 12:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it belongs here (maybe a one-word mention here with an article elsewhere?) but the maradona scam with fake police conning a foreigner into handing over their passport or wallet is pretty much unique to Romania, and primarily to Bucharest. Pickpockets are probably in every big city in the world, but the maradona is probably a "local specialty". -- Jmabel | Talk 06:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
You are right, and it belongs here. I dindn't knew about them until I read it from your romanian journal, and I wouldn't have how to know them, I look preety much like the average romanian. :D About the pickpokets, they were quite a great problem at the end of the 1990s, but now it is inside the big city average. --Mihai -talk 07:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I did a solid stub at Maradona (scam). We could just mention this in passing and link to that. Not a lot on line; I wonder if there is more about this in a book some place? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
"Bucharest has its own municipal police force, the Bucharest Police (Poliţia Bucureşti), which is under the administration of the City Hall [..]" AFAIK, only the Local Police (Poliţia Comunitară) is run by the City Hall; the Bucharest Police is subordinated to the General Inspectorate of the Police (under the aegis of the Ministry of Administration and Interior). Mentatus 08:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dâmboviţă vs. Argeş and the Danube

Bucharest is situated on the banks of the Dâmboviţa River, a tributary of the Danube

Actually, Dâmboviţa spills in Argeş which is indeed a tributary of the Danube... Should we change this? bogdan 21:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Changed to "Bucharest is situated on the banks of the Dâmboviţa River, which flows into the Argeş River, a tributary of the Danube." Ronline ✉ 02:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Summer

This has been coming along really nicely. Does anyone have a good summer picture for the climate section? Or are we going to have to wait six months? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

er.. How should "summer" be illustrated ? bogdan 00:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Like the photos I took of Malmö: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anittas#Photos_contributed_by_me --Anittas 00:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I think what we need much more urgently than a summer photo is one of public instutions. Preferably the City Hall, but even sectorial councils, the Police Directorate-General or anything else mentioned in the "Law and government" section. Ronline ✉ 09:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Which should be easily accomplished by someone in Bucharest with a digital camera. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record

This city sucks. Iaşi should be the capital of Romania. --Anittas 20:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

We all know the reason why Iaşi was not chosen capital: it was too close to the Russian border. Bucharest also had a population about 50% larger, but the main reason was the location. bogdan 20:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL, you reverted my link to the article you gave us. I liked the article. It was a good one. --Anittas 21:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Let us concentrate for other goals. Let's not waste our time on such discussion.-- Bonaparte talk 21:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course, there was a period during World War I when Bucharest proved to be a bit close to the Germans. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Just like Washington D.C. in 1814, when it proved to be a bit too close to England :) -- Mentatus 08:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Architecture

Buna ziua to all Romanian readers. I just wanted to make one point about a change I made to your site: Communist style architecture - does not exist in any shape or form. Architecture is attributed to races, nations, cultures, and individuals, not political movements. The basic box-design of buildings seen in Bucharest were mostly built after World War II and the reason was to house the people of Bucharest who lost their homes during the war. It is interesting to note that it is not only in Communist countries that you had this phenomenon; all over Germany every town there are large sections of residential blocks, many of which much weaker and uglier than those in Bucharest. The whole of East and South-east London STILL looks like a 1946 lego-set for many people with the misforture of taking an overground train through Plaistow, West Ham, Stratford, Peckham and Southwark. The list is endless. I know a fair bit about the Communism of Romania and like anywhere else, people were not thrown out of homes and shifted to these apartments, as as for the design, well that just continued to get better with the years. 70's buildings are better than 50's, and 80's better than 70's. I adore Bucharest and although I am not a communist, I'd hate to see the reputation of Bucharest fall into the hands of Anti-Communists who will do all they can to critisize Romania from 1945-89. They were the ones who invented the term 'Communist Architecture' throughout the socialist world. Celtmist 31.12.05


You're mistaken in a number of assumptions -First : architecture is driven by symbols, motives and ideas, like every other art around (as architecture is as much art as is science). When an entity is the only permitted generator and regulator of allowed ideas and is in control of all the symbols, such as a totalitarian regime is, you may consider that that entity is the generator of that art - that's why it's correct to say "communist architecture", "stalinist architecture", "nazi architecture". Even more, in such a regime ideology itself engulfs all other aspects of life, becoming the sole force that drives society - all other entities but the ruling one (say cultures, individuals, nations, races, organizations) exist either only in name (and identify in and through the identity of the ruling entity) or are illegal and therefore irrelevant. I've heard the phrase "communist architecture" a number of times in professional studies and research papers (although I am no architect, nor am I professionally linked to the field of architecture) and it refers to the general approach to architecture in the Communist Bloc starting 1956-1961 (destalinization) and ending with perestroika - it's also known as "Khrushchev's architecture". It's in no way a derogatory term, it's simply designed to distinguish and name this style in building and to associate it to the school of thought that gave it birth (bureaucratic communism). You are right in assuming that one of the considerations when designing the blocks and setting the GOST standards in the USSR where of a very practical nature - that is, housing as much citizens in as little space and with as little spending per housing unit, in a non-car public transport environment - and that this hypothesis also existed among western architects in the 1940's and 1950's - and therefore there are some slightly similar outputs - but there's where the similarities END. For example, you say that much of the blocks were built in the aftermath of World War II - that's NOT TRUE. Bucharest suffered little destruction in World War II (it was hard to reach, and Ploieşti, 60 km to the north was a far more important target - only around 25 buildings were struck by bombing - notably the old National Teathre). What was built between 1945 and 1955 was almost entirely of monumental nature (Casa Scânteii, a snowcone skyscraper similar with Warsaw's Palace of Culture or Moscow's University or Hotel Ukraine) or semi-luxury housing for the mid party apparatus or officers (on a very, very small scale - a few villas and 3 stories blocks near the Military Academy, a showcase neighborhood of around 20 blocks in Vatra Nouă/Bucureştii Noi). All these buildings followed very high specs in construction. The housing crisis was solved simply - nationalization of homes and setting up of communal housing (yes, throwing people out of their homes) - a room for two or three persons. This housing crisis reached peak in 1960, so no World War II to blame here! After 1960, with sprawling urbanization and industrialization, this was no longer possible, and Romania, as well as other East-Central European Countries copied the housing projects of the Russians, they fitted the regime best - both cheap to implement, respecting the practical issues, and befitting the ideological profile required - simple surveillence (one very small hallway for the whole block, administrator rooms next to the hallway), ideological conformity (all looked the same - at least on the outside). Much of these buildings, however, are not the concern of the article - most were built in the suburbs, over former agricultural fields. And architects tried to make the best out of the situation - even coming with interesting solutions (such as in Drumul Taberei or 1 Mai). Again, you are mistaken that they became better and better through the years, the opposite was the case - the largest and most comfortable apartaments were built amongst the first (1 Mai and Dinicu Golescu in 1960-1962), with the later (1975-1979) being the worst (they were built at an ever faster pace, and with fewer and fewer available material - check Pantelimon, Rahova, Ferentari and compare the confort of the projects - both when they were built and now). After 1980, however, Ceausescu wanted to redesign the entire city, and began demolishing and bulldozing much of the center of the city (including heritage buildings and yes, throwing people out of their homes AGAIN) and building blocks to a very ornate (and many would say kitsch) style, completely different from the previous architecture (including from the former communist architecture). This was called systematization, and between 50.000 and 150.000 people were thrown out of their homes between 1980 and 1989 and relocated in new blocks to make way for the "Casa Poporului, Bulevardul Victoriei Socialismului and Centrul Civic". So please, do not make assumptions where you have no information. --Xanthar 21:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I 90% agree with what Xanthar just wrote; I would point out, though, that similar government-built housing from the same era exists, for example, in the U.S., the UK, France, etc., and much of it is inferior to what is in Bucharest; and that one can even find commercial developments that are rather similar (Co-op City in the Bronx, Lefrak City in Queens, for example). -- Jmabel | Talk 22:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
No assumptions were made; I knew what I was talking about. I accept that I was not totally familiar with everything you said (you, who wrote the long paragraph), but I do know for a fact that there were many buildings built in the early 80's in Bucharest which were nicer than the existing buildings constructed 20 years earlier. When I find out the name of the area, I'll let you know. So Bucharest did not suffer much carnage in WWII, I am happy for you. London did, but even where it didn't, much of the same thing happened there. I currently rent a 14th floor flat in a complex built in 1951 in an area called Putney overlooking rows and rows of other cardboard block crumbling erectings. If communism is why you have it in Bucharest, what do you call this architecture in London? and that of Paris? Barcelona? Munich? Hamburg? Nowhere escapes it. I did not know that people lost their homes to be pushed into these blocks, I knew that in Socialism many people lost land and businesses but I did not know that losing plain old houses came with it. I'll take your word for it - either way, IF there is any such thing as Communist architecture, then this can only be the official buildings such as a presidential palace, ministry of health headquarters, but the ones used may have been Pre-war buildings. I guess I live in capitalist architecture!!! By the way, just because many people still call it 'Communist architecture' doesn't mean that it is. To me, housing apartments are housing apartments, not Ceausescu-ite, Austro-Hungarian Habsburg Stalinist Napoleonic etc.Celtmist 06-01-06

Climate (again)

Found this: [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Klima_bukarest.png]. --Mihai -talk 16:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Bucharest and orphans

I think the article needs to show how Bucharest abused its children and how it put an entire country to shame. To abuse children and let them suffer is against the laws of nature. --Anittas 19:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

And it would be good if we could mention that in fact - despite Bucharest being the richest, worldliest and most modern city in the country - it's really Romania's - no, Europe's - ugliest city, and of course link that to the fact that Iaşi, Romania's - no, Europe's - most glorious city, should deserve to be the capital of Romania, no? ;) I think the article mentions street children enough. It's not more of a problem in Bucharest then anywhere else in Europe. Ronline ✉ 09:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's shameful to let children suffer. It's against the laws of nature. Bucharesteans are necromancers. No, I don't think that you can find street-children in Berlin, London, Stockholm, etc. At least not as in Bucharest. You should have put those children as your highest priority. Yes, Iaşi should be the capital of Romania. Stefan cel Mare knew what he was doing when he set your city on fire. He knew that city meant trouble. --Anittas 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Anittas, it's not the city's fault. It was Ceauşescu's policies which resulted in these things being widespread across the country, and I can ensure you that in other cities of Romania there is the same problem, just on a smaller scale due to a smaller population. As to other European cities - the problem is there, it's just not as visibile. Reports by the Council of Europe put Bucharest as ranked somewhere in the middle in terms of street children. The problem is that the street children do live worse lives in Bucharest, due to the aurolac and lack of shelters. Yes, it's a problem. But both the article and the Municipality of Bucharest deal quite significantly with this issue. Ronline ✉ 06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that the lack of shelters is the striking part of this, and in that respect Bucharest is pretty bad. I doubt that the sheer number of homeless children is any larger than the number in an American city of the same size, but the lack of indoor sleeping facilities or even an organized camping situation is atypically bad for a city that is even moderately prosperous. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
What the bloody hell are you two rambling on about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.76.30.78 (talk • contribs) 9 Jan 2006.
Ronline is making a joke. I thought it was pretty amusing, myself. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

NYTimes article about Bucharest

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE4DB1730F936A15751C1A9639C8B63&sec=travel&pagewanted=print bogdan 00:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Obor

Why was Obor removed from the list of disricts in Sector 2? It seems to me like an important enough place to merit mention. - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)