Recently, MNAC (NMCA-National Museum of Contemporary Art) and the Royal Netherlands Embassy organised a debate about the public space; Justin Baroncea presented the case of public spaces in Barcelona at zeppelin; I talked about this under the Revival of the Fittest conferences organised by Hydrasociety. Briefly, there are many actions dedicated to this topic; some of them not only by our team, in which we talk increasingly often about what and how it should be done and I had the feeling that this is for everybody something quite obvious. Despite that, I realise there are confusions for specialists as well, be they architects or great urban planners.
Since the value of the public space and how this should be designed, created, developed is not clear within our own profession either. Perhaps that many of the things to come up in these pages are or will be signed by architects, artists or designers.
Meanwhile, pavements keep vanishing, parks are more or less undersized, too busy in the weekends, people vandalize or consume trivially, and act vulgarly.
There is no normal and democratic society without a public space, and the interventions in it should only be effective not only in terms of political visibility, but to stimulate really the community values, the tolerance, and the communication. There is nowhere in the legislation a social or civilian right defined as follows: the public space, but its presence is defining for our social, emotional and cultural health etc. Town halls advance slowly, the programmes are incoherent or confusing, and the little they do often turn to get opposite results to good intentions. We are certain that those behind such actions, developments and achievements have no intention to stir laughs, but are well-meant to get a better looking city.
It happens then that our places get dreadful, hilarious, involuntarily comical, sometimes insanely grotesque, and instead of us reacting, replying, commenting or amending, we stop taking those into consideration and start living in an absurd world, while becoming insensitive. We turn brutal, intolerant, vulgar and irresponsible.
Given all this, we think it is the time to make up a compact critial response and explain clearly, show the arguments of what bothers us, of what does not work. We want to support them, to provide our opinions, reactions as experts. Perhaps the lack of such reactions is a sign of weakness on our behalf too.
Public money could be used better, be it a better idea instead of a bad one, at the same cost, or a strategic plan at a lower budget. Why the fate of such investments could not be better than the mere signposting (decorative and fencing), a rather polluting electoral upgrading. If we need to spend time, invest energy and resources, why should this not count for real and long term? As long as we do not talk about this, such issues will keep coming and turn increasingly regularly with all their negative impact.
That is why we suggest such a topic in which we investigate what really happens around us, not the grand theories, not mere attractive images, and spectacular projects, but a clear and critical research. We do not want to get desperate and immobile, or perplexed and confused even if we float in a sea of vast and minor topics. No matter how insignificant our efforts, corrections and improvements, it is still important to do it. We will thus talk about the space, and especially, the non-public space for Romanians, with the intention to stir your thoughts and reactions.
Text: Constantin Goagea. Translation: Dana Radler
Photo: Mihaela Poenaru
