Recent Urbanisation and the Challenges in Capitalising ...

Urbanism Capitalization upon the built heritage in Bucharest [...] • F.Merciu, G. Merciu, G. Secăreanu, A. Cercleux

101

RECENT URBANISATION AND THE CHALLENGESIN CAPITALISING UPON THE BUILT HERITAGE IN

THE NORTHERN AREA OF BUCHAREST

Florentina-Cristina MERCIUSecond Scientific Researcher, PhD, University of Bucharest, Faculty of

Geography, Interdisciplinary Center of Advanced Research on TerritorialDynamics, e-mail: [email protected]

George-Laurenţiu MERCIUResearcher PhD, University of Bucahrest, Faculty of Geography,

Department of Geomorphology, Pedology, Geomatics e-mail:[email protected]

George SECĂREANUResearcher Assistent, PhD, University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geography,Interdisciplinary Center of Advanced Research on Territorial Dynamics, e-

mail:[email protected]

Andreea-Loreta CERCLEUXAssociate Professor, PhD, University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geography,

Interdisciplinary Center of Advanced Research on Territorial Dynamics, e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. The northern area of Bucharest has experienced a morerecent urban development by including in the administrative limits,in successive stages, throughout the twentieth century, somesuburban communes transformed into neighborhoods of the capitalcity as a result of the increasingly accelerated trend of the socio-economic development of Bucharest. This evolution was also favoredby the construction of infrastructure elements (Băneasa Airport,Băneasa Railway Station), but also of cultural heritage elements(villas of Romanian cultural personalities), buildings that have acertain historical architectural and cultural value. The aim of thisstudy is to analyze the cultural heritage of the northern area ofBucharest, based on a multicriteria evaluation (functional-chronological criterion correlated with the territorial one), of thehistorical monuments, in order to outline a series of measures ofoptimum capitalisation from the cultural and tourist perspective.Because the Northen area of Bucharest is individualized by culturalobiectives that represent symbolic elements of the capital city due tothe functions they perform (representative museums, presidentialstation), the authors proposed several cultural routes in order to

• Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 11 • Nr. 2 • 2020

102

bring to light these valuable cultural objectives and to bettercapitalize them.

Key words: urban heritage, cultural identity, functional-chronologicalcriterion, cultural conversion

1. IntroductionThe urban heritage is distinctive due tothe long evolution of the urban centres,which led to the creation of a landscapesteeped in history, marked by valuablemonuments from an architectural,historical and cultural point of view, towhich a multitude of identities is linkedon different scales (local, regional,national) (Ilovan et al., 2018; Ochkovskayand Gerasimenko, 2018; Vesalon andCreţan, 2019; Kádár and Benedek, 2019;Coman, 2009). The spatial projection ofcultural identity delimits territorialentities, focused on tangible and non-tangible heritage. In the above-mentionedanalysis, the processes of reaffirming thelocal identity and its conservation areencouraged, with the role of increasingthe resistance to change of the localcommunities, but also with the aim tofight against exclusion and uniformity,aspects generated by globalization (Rocaand Oliveira-Roca, 2007).

The issue of cultural heritage, andespecially its urban side, requires aninterdisciplinary and multifacetedapproach due to the fact that urban spaceis constantly changing. This situationnegatively influences the urban heritage,threatened to be destroyed due to theaccelerated urban development, whichrequires active conservation measures(Veldpaus et al., 2013; Yilmaz et al., 2014;Stan, 2017; Hamma et al., 2018; Merciu etal., 2018a; Moscovici et al., 2019; Fantazi etal., 2019). The aspects of cultural heritageare often viewed as an obstacle to urbandevelopment (Fairclough et al., 2008;

Pendlebury, 2013), as a result of strictconservation policies as well as theirevolution. Therefore, if in the first part ofthe twentieth century the preservationand individual restoration of monumentsor of the urban assemblies (object-basedapproach) (Veldpaus et al., 2013, p. 4) arediscussed, starting with the second partof the twentieth century the heritagemanagement culture has been designedon an urban scale (Fairclough et al., 2008;Allen, 2012; Guzman et al., 2018).

The complexity of the study on the builtcultural heritage is conferred by thediversity of the analyzed aspects:typology, manner of conservation andrestoration (Allen, 2012; Prelipcean, 2018;Carbonara, 2018; Abate, 2019; Jimenezand Gutierrez-Carrillo, 2019; Marvasi etal., 2019; Randazzo et al., 2020), the risksthat may affect historical monuments: theanthropic risks (Fairclough et al., 2008;Spiridon et al., 2017; Nicu, 2017; Lyu et al.,2019; Bulai et al., 2019; Grecu et al., 2019),or the natural ones (Orchiston, 2012;Nicu, 2017; Guzman et al., 2018;Qualiarini et al., 2019; Spiridon et al., 2017;Merciu et al., 2018a; Sesana et al., 2020);their multiple valences (historical,commemorative, aesthetic, cultural,spiritual, educational, symbolic,economic) that most often intersect(Stephenson, 2008; Ferretti et al., 2014;Drăghici et al., 2015; Matečić, 2016; Polatand Demirel, 2016; Vukonić, 2018);energy efficiency of heritage buildings(Lidelöw et al., 2019; Galiano-Garrigós etal., 2019); the use of modern non-invasivetechnologies for the monitoring,


103

conservation and promotion of culturalheritage (Esmaielzadeh et al., 2018; Tacheet al., 2018; Crova and Miraglia, 2018;Abate, 2019; Boutsi et al., 2019; Fioretti etal., 2019; Moscovici et al., 2019; López etal., 2020; Benslimane et al., 2020;Themistocleous, 2020; Germinario et al.,2020); the reuse of heritage buildings(Merciu et al., 2014; Nesticò et al., 2015;Boștenaru Dan et al., 2017; Chen et al.,2018; Guerrero et al., 2018; Guimarães,2018; Vardopoulos, 2019; Fantazi et al.,2019; Rodrigues and Franco, 2019;Musolino, 2020; Merciu et al., 2020; Riberaet al., 2020).

The interpretation of the heritage fromthe perspective of national policieshighlights the management of culturalheritage in distinct ways, matter that iscorrelated with historical elements,religious traditions, social and economicrelations (Papazoglou, 2019: 2626).

The policy at the level of the EuropeanUnion complements the national policiesin the field of culture, offering the legalframework, the orientations, the culturebeing thought of as part of any sector ofthe processes of policy making(integration). Thus, culture is considereda binder that contributes to increasing thesense of belonging of the Europeancitizens to a common cultural area, atEuropean level.

Moreover, at the level of EU, strategicobjectives were established to “contributeto the flowering of the cultures of theMember States, while respecting theirnational and regional diversity” (Treatyon the Functioning of the EuropeanUnion, 2008, article 167).

The fall of the Communist regime in thecountries of Central and Eastern Europefavored the opening of these countries to

the tourism market, showing a particularinterest in the flows of tourists from thecountries of Western Europe due to thepresence of valuable heritage items thatmust be preserved and promoted(Hammersley and Westlake, 1994). At thesame time, the same authors consider thatthe heritage elements of the countries inCentral and Eastern Europe are underthreat of "insensitive exploitation" underthe pressure of dynamic commercialdevelopment and the lack of interventionof the authorities.

An analysis of the capital cities ofSoutheast Europe indicates that they areamong the urban centres as a result of thepolitical context prior to the 1990s. Theyhave included a limited number ofextraordinary cultural landmarks (inPrague, Budapest, etc.) during thetransition from the communist regime tothe capitalist economy (Jordan, 2014: 483quoted by Merciu et al., 2018b: 177).

Some Southeast European cities haveregistered a significant development ofcultural tourism since 2004 due toimproved accessibility and increasedtourism promotion (Jordan, 2014: 483quoted by Merciu et al., 2018b: 177).

The purpose of this study is to analyzethe cultural heritage of the northern areaof Bucharest, based on the multicriteriaevaluation (functional-chronologicalcriterion correlated with the territorialone), of the historical monuments tooutline a series of measures to optimizetheir capitalization.

The northern area of Bucharestmunicipality is individualized by culturalobjectives that represent symbolicelements of the capital city due to themultiple valences that they associate(historical, architectural, cultural), but


104

also as a result of the functions theyperform (presidential station,representative museums).

2. Case studyThe northern area of Bucharest (Fig. 1)began to crystallize as an urbanlandscape at the beginning of the 20thcentury, when the capital city showed aclear tendency towards territorialexpansion, embodying the rural areas ofits peri-urban area.

Fig. 1. Location of the study area.

At the same time, the northern area of thecapital city, although it has registered amore recent urban development due tothe favorable physical-geographicalcharacteristics, has represented anattractive area for the population of thecapital city from the initial rural phasedue to the presence of green spaces. Atthe same time, due to the characteristicsof the built space characterized by alower density of buildings, this area wasselected for the creation of infrastructureelements that served the capital city sincethe beginning of the 20th century (royalstation, international airport), when thisarea was still not included in theadministrative limits of Bucharest.

Over time, the recreational character alsofavored the construction of Romanian-style neoclassical villas on the border

between the peri-urban area and thenorthern part of Bucharest, representingyet another binder between the twoareas that would foreshadow theirmerging.

The evolution of the northern peripheralarea of the capital city has beenindividualized since the end of the 19thcentury as a distinct area when comparedto the other peripheral areas (southern,western, eastern), accumulating differenturban structures (infrastructure elements,buildings, sports facilities) which havegenerated an urban landscape withmodern buildings, with architecturalvalences, which have also experiencedcultural reuse (transformation of villasinto museums). Thus, over time, whenthe studied territory was integratedwithin the administrative limits of thecapital city, the cultural value was addedto the recreational character by creatingcultural institutions of nationalimportance, which contributed to theindividualization of the tourist functionof this territory.

3. Methodology

The complexity of the cultural heritagerequires the use of a multicriteriaassessment.

In the first stage of elaboration of thestudy, the historical monuments wereidentified using the List of HistoricalMonuments updated in 2015 as a sourceof information. The built heritage wasanalyzed using the functional-chronological criterion correlated withthe territorial criterion, with the purposeof realizing a grouping of historicalmonuments by areas and routes.

Based on the multicriteria analysis, thevalues of the built heritage elements can


105

be identified, and the evaluation of thisfact is very useful in the elaboration ofmeasures of their higher valorisation(e.g. in the form of cultural circuits).

Based on the multicriteria evaluation, azoning of the analyzed territory wasperformed according to the functional-chronological criterion (by class ofmonuments, using the chronologicalfactor: e.g. prehistoric sites, sites from themedieval period, architectural assembliesand architectural monuments from thepre-modern and modern periods. Theterritorial criterion was used to outlineareas and routes containing similarheritage values.

The evaluation stage of the historicalmonuments was followed by a fieldcampaign to identify the position of themonuments in the territory, the captureof the architectural elements, and thedegree of their conservation. Theelements resulting from the evaluation ofthe historical monuments and theinformation collected following the fieldcampaign were representedcartographically, using the GeographicInformation System.

Maps regarding the typology of thehistorical monuments, the period ofconstruction, the typology of themonuments according to importance(national/local) were then elaborated.At the same time, a map of the densityof historical monuments waselaborated, using a Heat Map createdthrough the dynamic method andKernel Density Estimation. Heat mapallows a representation of geospatialdata using different colors withdifferent concentrations of points inorder to reflect an overall shape andconcentration trends (Scăunaș et al.,2019).

In the second stage, the authors carriedout a documentation activity regardingthe history of the heritage monuments ofthe studied area, aiming at identifyingimportant information such as: data onmonument construction, previousfunction, data on monument architecture(form, building materials, architecturalstyle etc.). At the same time, the authorssought to characterize the environmentof insertion of heritage elements and theconnections with the main historical-geographical landmarks.

In order to develop measures ofvalorization of the heritage elements ofthe studied area, several cultural circuits(of religious, architectural interest, etc.)have been proposed.

From a methodological point of view, forthe "construction" of the cultural circuits,a series of criteria were taken intoaccount, which are used in establishingthe European cultural circuits (Culturalroutes management: from theory topractice, 2015):· the presence of a common theme that

connects several objectives (a culturalitinerary is made up of differentpoints linked by a common heritageor that have been traveled throughouthistory);

· the itinerary is a product, respectivelya tourist route, a physical route for thegeneral public, especially tourists,aiming at connecting the localitineraries organized around thediscovery of the local heritage; thecultural itineraries support thedevelopment of authentic tourism-experiences, generating positiveeconomic effects also in lesser-knownareas;

· selecting the defining element thatallows the identification of the routebetween other itineraries;


106

· facilitates the accumulation ofknowledge, mutual and interculturalunderstanding.

4. Results and discussionsThe northern area of Bucharest has amore recent urban development whencompared to the central area of the capitalcity dating from the medieval period.

This area was formed by including somesuburban communes within theadministrative limits of Bucharest, inrelatively close stages, starting with the20th century (Floreasca, Herăstrău,Băneasa), an area considered as aperipheral residential space completed byold rural communities at the end of the19th century (Suditu, 2016).

The more recent evolution of the northernpart of Bucharest is correlated with thetrends of expansion of the city from theend of the 19th century and the beginningof the 20th century as a result of the largeinflux of population headed to thecountry's capital. This trend is alsocorrelated with the accelerated economicdynamics of the city (Suditu, 2016;Merciu et al., 2018; Ilea et al., 2019), thatwas already connected to theinfrastructure and services provided bythe peri-urban area of the city.

The peri-urban northern area of thecapital city presented a series of favorablephysical-geographical conditions (landsuitability for agriculture, less dense builtspaces). Due to the proximity to thecapital city, there were mutual relationsbetween the communes of the peri-urbanarea and the city. Thus, the first linkbetween the polarizing city and theneighbouring communes was establishedon the basis of the supply of fresh fruitsand vegetables to the population of thecapital city. For example, during the

interwar period, the inhabitants ofBăneasa commune were mainly dealingwith the preparation of milk and cheese,which they brought to the city(Mihăilescu, 2003).

Also, due to the presence of a large areaof forest (624 ha in Băneasa), the northernperi-urban area of Bucharest has alsoaccumulated the tourist function, offeringpossibilities for recreation of the urbanpopulation. Gradually, small industrialunits (e.g. brick factory) will bedeveloped as a result of the increase inhousing demand for civil servants.

The peripheral area of Bucharest, called"New Town" by Vintilă Mihăilescu(2003), was developed beyond the beltwith the city barriers, so that until themid-19th century it was not yetassimilated within the administrativelimits of the city. This area wasadministratively delimited by ageometric polygon. Thus, the peripheralarea had a mixed aspect at the beginningof the 20th century as a result of thepresence of factories, warehouses, greenspaces, associated with the areas of cheaphousing or villas belonging to the rich.One can see, in the northern part of thecity, during the inter-war period, howplans for systematizing the city wereelaborated: in 1933 the works of drainageof the marshy area located along theColentina Valley by creating the Băneasa,Herăstrău, Floreasca lakes, which laterformed an important area ofattractiveness (and a vector for citydevelopment (Stan, 2016), arranging theHerăstrău Park by transforming a spacethat was previously covered by reeds.During the same period, more luxuriousvilla neighborhoods (Mihăilescu, 2003:150) and research institutions were built.Therefore, in the northern part of thecapital city two racecourses were set up:


107

Băneasa-Gallop and Trapp-Băneasa(according to the map from 1938) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Map of the northern area of Bucharest(1938) Source: public archives.

The construction of racecourses in thenorthern extremity of the city, at theborder with Băneasa commune, explainsthe fact that the names of theracecourses also include the toponym ofBăneasa.

In the early 1900s, an aerodrome wasbuilt on the territory of Băneasacommune for short-distance flights. In1912, Prince George Valentin Bibescu, thepresident of the Romanian Air League,set up a pilot school for military pilots inBăneasa. In addition, the construction ofBăneasa airport in 1920, the firstinternational airport of Romania, bytransforming the previously builtaerodrome, within the administrativeboundaries of the homonymoussuburban commune, had a special role inboosting Romania's economic exchangeswith other countries, contributing to thedevelopment of the capital city (Scăunașet al., 2019).

At the same time, the northern part ofBucharest was also selected for theconstruction of villas by the wealthypopulation, among which wereprominent personalities of the Bucharestsociety at that time.

By the law of 1939 for the organization ofthe municipality of Bucharest thesuburban commune Herăstrău isincluded (Suditu, 2016: 119).

In 1948, through the Decision of theCentral Committee of the RomanianLabor Party, the commune of Băneasawill also be included (Suditu, 2016: 166).

During the communist period, thesystematization plan generated thetransformation of former suburbancommunes into neighborhoods. InFloreasca, at the beginning of the 1960s,108 appartment buildings were put intoservice. The neighborhood is made up ofstreets with squared texture and names ofcomposers (Bach, Glinka, Mozart, Bizet)and was provided with a commercialcomplex, a cinema, etc. (Suditu, 2016).

In Băneasa commune, the significantchanges took place later (in the 80's)when compared to the other communestransformed into neighbourhoods in thenorthern part of the city (e.g. Herăstrău,Floreasca).

The northern area of Bucharest isindividualized by cultural objectives thathave a certain historical value, most ofthem dating from the stage when thisarea was a rural one.

The protected built heritage of thestudied area comprises the 4 categories ofhistorical monuments (41 archaeologicalsites, 26 architectural heritage elementsand 3 parcelings, 5 public monuments


108

and 3 commemorative monuments) (Fig.3).

We note the preponderance ofarchaeological sites, a fact justified by thelong evolution of the analyzed territory.They are concentrated near the course ofthe Colentina Valley (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Typology of historical monuments Source:data processed by authors according to the List of

Historical Monuments (2015).

Almost half of the archaeological sites(21) are grouped in the Băneasa district,of which 7 are of national importance,dating from the prehistoric period (Fig.4): Bronze Age: Tei Culture, Glina IICulture, and Neolithic Age.

The Tei culture emerged and developedfrom the Middle Bronze until the LateBronze Age, being one of the most well-defined cultural manifestations inMuntenia (Wallachia) during this period.

The archaeological discoveries reveal aconcentration of the early settlements ofTei culture in the central area ofMuntenia - on the territory of Bucharest,the southern area of Ilfov county andGiurgiu County, up to the Danube. Thisarea is called by Cristian Schuster as thebasic territory of Tei culture (Gavrilă,2015: 58). In the study area there wereidentified settlements belonging to TeiCulture: La Stejar - settlement in Băneasa

neighbourhood, former brickyardBazilescu, Bucureștii Noi - settlementwith two levels of housing (Gavrilă,2015).

Also, 6 archaeological sites are located inthe Dămăroaia neighborhood and havetraces of medieval settlements, 4 sites inthe Străulești neighborhood, 3 in Chitila,3 in the Floreasca neighborhood(homonymous park) and 2 in theHerăstrău Park area.

The analysis of the protected builtheritage using the functional-chronological criterion, emphasized thaton the analyzed territory thearchaeological sites belong to theprehistoric (26 sites) (Paleolithic, BronzeAge, Iron, Neolithic) and medievalperiods (14 sites) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Classification of historical monumentsaccording to chronological cri terion Source: data

processed by authors according to the List ofHistorical Monuments (2015).

Two archaeological sites date from thepre-modern period: the vestiges of theVăcăreștilor court (18th-19th centuries),located to the north of triage of Băneasarailway station and the Bibescu Palacecellar, built in the first part of the 19thcentury (Băneasa neighborhood, on thesouth bank of the Lake Băneasa, betweenBucharest-Ploiești Road to the east andMateloţilor Avenue to the northwest).


109

Of the archaeological sites located in thenorthern area of Bucharest, the mostimportant in terms of tourism are the twosites dating from the pre-modern period,which are related to the more recenthistory marked by the evolution of thisarea as a rural area until the stage whereit was included in the administrativelimits of the capital city.

The history of the area is related to thenames of rules, boyards, culturalpersonalities and, not least, the membersof Royal House.

At the end of the eighteenth century, alarge part of the Băneasa commune,formerly known as Cârstienești Estate,was bought by the chancellor and greatruler Ştefan Văcărescu (Scăunaș et al.,2019). The family of poets Văcărescu builta mansion and the church of St. Nicholas"Băneasa" (Sandachi and Hadîr, 2005).After 1845, Băneasa Estate becomes the royalproperty of Gheorghe Bibescu (ruler of theWallachia between years 1842-1848, a directdescendant of Prince ConstantinBrâncoveanu), who married MariaVăcărescu. On this occasion, Bibescu-Vodărepairs the manor and the church, but alsobegins the construction of a new palace,according to the plans of the architect JohannSchlatter, emphasizing the beautiful parkaround the church. Valentin Bibescu,grandson of the ruler Gheorghe Bibescu, isthe founder of the Romanian AutomobileClub in 1904. He founded the RomanianAviatic Club in 1909 and the National AirLeague in 1912 (a pilot school for militarypilots) in Băneasa commune. He is thefounder of Băneasa Airport, which wasbuilt on the estate of his aunt, MariaBibescu, Countess of Montesquieu-Fézensac (current location: Băneasaneighbourhood) (Sandachi and Hadîr,2005).

The Royal Family of Romania owned aland on the territory of the formerBăneasa commune, on which a royal farmwas built. The Administration of thePrivate Goods of the Royal House hasappointed the architect Ion Boceanu torealize the ensemble of the royal farm.The building is U-shaped, being acomposition of simple volumes,presenting a pronounced functionalcharacter. The structure of the building ismade of concrete, the masonry is made ofbrick, and the red covering fits both asmaterial and as slope. The well-knownRomanian construction engineer EmilPrager was responsible for undertakingthe works, and the landscape architectVinari for landscaping. On the mainfacade was used, for purely decorativepurpose, the 'fachwerk' woodworksystem, having the role to unify and togive coherence to the whole ensemble.

The Royal farm Băneasa also has annexes:the administrator's house (the buildingwith a tower), with a basement, groundfloor, floor, loft and attic. Separated fromthis building, the bedrooms of the 20employees were on the ground floor andupstairs, as the farm had greenhouses,vegetable gardens and fruit trees. Theroyal stables include the animal boxes(horses, mares and cows) on the groundfloor, and their food was stored on thefirst floor.

After 2000, a project of transforming thebuilding into a cultural center wasconceived, for which rehabilitation workswere needed due to the fact that the farmhad become unproductive and wasabandoned, presenting an advanceddegree of degradation. The rehabilitationproject also created an environmental,luminous, acoustic comfort andimproved the energy efficiency.


110

From November 2004, on the first floorwas opened the Metropolitan CulturalCenter for Youth, under the authority ofthe Directorate of Communication andEuropean Integration, the Service for thePromotion of Cultural and SportsActivities for Youth, within the City Hallof Sector 1. This center supports cultural,scientific, educational, civic, informationand documentation activities, byorganizing various events and programsaddressing youth.

The architectural heritage elementsrepresent the second most importantcategory of monuments in the northernarea of Bucharest.

According to the criterion of the valuegroup, almost half of the architecturalmonuments are included in the valuegroup of national importance: Dr.Minovici's villa, which houses theMuseum of Folk Art, the Museum ofMedieval Art, the Jianu-Bordei parceling,the Saint Sofia Church, the Saint NicholasChurch, the cellars of the Văcărescuhouse, Ford Branch Ensemble, etc. (Fig.5).

Fig. 5. Classification of historical monuments byvalue group Source: data processed by authorsaccording to the List of Historical Monuments

(2015).

Most of the historical architecturalmonuments are in the central part of the

studied area, superimposed on theBăneasa neighborhood.

The Băneasa neighborhood includeswithin its limits half of the number ofarchitectural monuments in the studiedarea, noting a typological diversity:monuments of civil architecture from theinterwar period: Dr. Minovici Villa, alsocalled "Villa with tinker bells", today theMuseum of Folk Art 'Dr. NicolaeMinovici' (Fig. 6), the Diplomats' Club,the cellars of Văcărescu house, the SaintNicolae Church, Băneasa; museums: TheMuseum of Medieval Art (Fig. 7),elements of industrial infrastructure (thepassenger terminal of BăneasaInternational Airport, Băneasa Bridge).

Fig. 6. The Museum of Folk Art (Merciu C., July,2019).

The Museum of Folk Art was arranged inthe resting villa of Dr. Nicolae Minovici, animportant exponent of Romanian medicinefrom the beginning of the 20th century. Thebuilding, considered one of thearchitectural monuments, remarkable forthe Neo-Romanian style in Bucharest, wasbuilt in 1905 (Berindei and Bonifaciu, 1980).The heritage building was built accordingto the plan of the architect Cristofi Cerchez,combining the Neo-Romanian style withthe European styles from the beginning ofthe 20th century (Fig. 6).


111

From the traditional architecture, we cansee a tower in the foreground, on thesouthern side, which is borrowed fromthe Oltenia style tower (cula), an which isfortified with a buttress. This elementgives originality to the building amongthe constructions of the Neo-Romanianstyle. Upstairs, there is an extendedterrace, composed of two discrepantelements: an Italian loggia and a peasantporch. These are delimited on the inside,the facade retaining the unitary aspect,but the decorative elements presentingthe identity of the style from which theycome. The presence of twisted columnsand incised pillars, stone panels frettedwith acanthus leaves and borders crestedwith apotropaic motifs are noted. Dr.Nicolae Minovici initiated the demarcheto collect objects of national art over fourdecades, transforming the villa, since1906, into an exhibition space for thecollection of Romanian ethnographic art.The collection contains objects fromtraditional ceramics and textiles (shirts,Romanian blouses, different styles oftraditional skirts, towels, rugs) tocontemporary painting.

The museum also has representativecollections of icons, different woodenobjects specific to the peasant household.

Ethno-folklore patrimony presents a hightouristic value and attractiveness(Antonescu and Iordache, 2019), whichjustifies the importance of this museum.

The Museum of Old Westerner Art wasinaugurated in 1946, after the spousesLigia and Dumitru Minovici donated thehouse and the art collection to theRomanian Academy (Fig. 7). The housein which the museum was arranged wasbuilt in the Tudor style, between 1940and 1941, according to the plan drawnup by the architect Enzo Canella and the

engineer D. Minovici. Within themuseum, the collection of art objectsincludes: stained glass windows fromthe 16th to the 17th centuries,engravings, rare books, tapestries,carpets, furniture.

Fig. 7. The Museum of Medieval Art "Eng.Dumitru Minovici" (Merciu C., January 2020).

In Băneasa neighborhood, the BăneasaRailway Station is individualized byarchitectural value, formerly calledMogoșoaia, built in 1936. The location ofthe railway station was established at thenorthern extremity of the capital city, inthe locality of Băneasa, which was thenoutside the administrative limits of thecity.

The station served the Bucharest-Brașovroute, extremely important for thesouthern part of Romania. Built in themodernist-style, by the plans of thefamous architect Duiliu Marcu, incollaboration with Nicolae Nedelescu, therailway station has a main pavilion,which constitutes the actual passengerstation, a movement central cabin, aguard body, as well as a large trainplatform, partly covered, of 70 m long(Fig. 8).

The main pavilion, with an area of 280sqm, has rooms reserved for officialpersons, as well as a spacious receptionhall (Bellu, 1999: 127). The construction is


112

executed with reinforced concreteskeleton, and the facades are plated withRomanian travertine. The covers are interraces, with the rainwater flow inland.The interior floors are made of pinkmarble tiles by Rușchiţa and black marbleby Belgium (Bellu, 1999: 127).

Fig. 8. Băneasa railway station (Merciu C., July2019).

The access to the station area is madefrom the north, below a lower railwaypassage (1935) - acting as an architectural"treatment", the element of travertine, likea slab, prolongs in evocative manner thebuilding of the Royal Railway Station andthe official platform. It functioned as aroyal railway station only until 1947.After 1950, the railway station was usedby the communist authorities as aprotocol station, for the "presidentialtrains" of the heads of state of Romaniaand for the reception of foreign officials(Bellu, 1999: 127). Starting from 2012, theBăneasa Royal Railway Station is usedperiodically by the Royal Family ofRomania as a starting and arrival pointfor symbol-trips. Also, the station hasbecome as well a place where differentcultural events (concerts, festivals, etc.)are organized.

Another tourist area is noted in thesouthern part of the analyzed area,superimposed on the Floreascaneighborhood, which also includes twoarchitectural assemblies: Negroponte andJianu-Bordei parcelings.

In the Floreasca neighborhood we can seeboth civil architectural monuments(Dimitrie Gusti's house, the founder ofthe Village Museum in Bucharest), aswell as religious landmarks the SaintSofia Church, Floreasca, or the industrialhistorical monument (Ford BranchEnsemble).

The Saint Sofia church was built in theBrancovan architectural style, at theinitiative of the Florescu boyar family,around 1738 (Bonifaciu and Berindei,1980).

Fig. 9. Saint Sofia Church (Floreascaneighborhood) (Merciu C., January 2020).

The not too deep arches of the church,which decorate the walls, resemble withthe motifs applied on the Stavreopoleoschurch, built in 1724, with those of theChurch of the Saints of Bucharest, andwith those of the Săftica church of Ilfov,which were built at about the same time.At the beginning of the 19th century, thechurch had a very advanced state ofdegradation.

The Negropontes family financed therestoration work, on which occasion thechurch was reconsecrated, beingdedicated to St. Sofia, after the name ofhis wife, Sofia Negropontes. ArchitectPaul Smărăndescu restored the churchstrictly respecting the plaster work, theprofiles and old forms that have beenpreserved, the framing, the sheathing,the carved stone frame, the windows


113

and the church tower being alsorestored. In the early 1980s, thearchitectural ensemble was restored byplastering the church and thesurrounding wall, the painting wasrestored, and new stained glasswindows were installed in the tower.

The Ford Branch Ensemble, dating fromthe interwar period, is a landmark in theFloreasca neighborhood, being classifiedas a historical monument of nationalimportance. Currently, the industrialheritage building preserves theadministrative pavilion (body 1 - Fig. 10a)and the east and west facades of the inter-war hall (body 2 - Fig. 10b).

Fig. 10. Ford Branch Assembly: a) administrativebuilding b) industrial hall (Merciu C., January

2020).

The large area of land occupied by theindustrial site in a neighborhood locatednear the central area of the city, but alsoits state of non-functionality, havedetermined in time a pressure on thedevelopment of services and of theresidential component. The industrialassembly is included in a large real estateproject that aims to reuse industrialbuildings, following the restoration andchange of side facades, as a commercialspace, and next to it will be built an officebuilding and three blocks with exclusivistapartments.

The parcelings of Negroponte and Jianu-Bordei are allotments within theFloreasca neighborhood, made between1935 and 1939, previously the land being

occupied by the Floreasca hippodrome,later the trot racing being moved to theBăneasa hippodrome. The allotmentsmainly group villas type buildings fromthe interwar period, some of them havinga special architectural value (the Jianu-Bordei parceling being classified in valuegroup A).

Based on the territorial criterion, theanalysis of the spatial distribution of thehistorical monuments highlights that inother areas the density of thearchitectural monuments is very low, theNational Museum of Romanian AviationEnsemble being noticed in the Piperaneighborhood. Although the museumwas created in 1990, until 2006 when itscurrent location was established, it knewseveral locations (on Otopeni airport in 5tents, in front of Baneasa airport).Currently, the exhibition space of theNational Museum of Romanian Aviationcomprises two hangar-type buildings andan outdoor exhibition.

Hangar 1 (The Traian Vuia Hall) containsexhibits that show the history ofaeronautics from the beginning until1959, in which there are also exhibitedmodels of the planes made by the threepioneers of the Romanian aviation:Traian Vuia, Aurel Vlaicu and HenriCoandă.

In Hangar 2, the basic exhibition isdedicated to the '60s-'70s years, withexhibits including: MIGs (models 17, 19,21, L-29), flight simulators, radiolocationtechnique and anti-aircraft artilleryspecific to the era.

In the open-air exhibition park, classic-engine airplanes, but also reactive,helicopters, radiolocation technique, anti-aircraft cannons and ground-to-airmissiles are on display.


114

The number of monuments of publicinterest and commemoratives is lower,but a series of architectural monumentsor created by famous sculptors are noted.In the studied area there are 5monuments of public interest, two ofwhich are registered in the value group ofnational importance: Mioriţa Fountainand the Sleeping Nymph statue withinthe Herăstrău Park.

Mioriţa Fountain is located in front of theMuseum of Folk Art. The constructionwas executed by the architect OctavDoicescu and the mosaics with which themonument is decorated are made byMiliţa Petrașcu (Georgescu et al., 1966).Beside her, the artist Niculescu MogoșGheorghe also worked at the fountainmosaic. The mosaics are an illustration ofthe ballad “Mioriţa”, the name of theballad being borrowed also for the nameof the monument (Georgescu et al., 1966).

The fountain was inaugurated on theoccasion of the exhibition “Month ofBucharest” in 1936, which, in that year,took place between the Arc de Triompheand the railroad passage near the MinaMinovici villa. The three commemorativemonuments within the limits of the studyarea are related to important historicalevents at national level: the monument ofthe fallen heroes in WW I in the Baneasacommune (located in front of the BăneasaAirport Passenger Terminal), thememorial plaque honoring the heroeskilled in the December Revolution of1989, the memorial plaque marking thebattles site of August 1944.

Based on the territorial criterion, a map ofthe density of the historical monumentsfrom the study area was drawn up. Usinga Heat Map, the areas with higher densityof historical monuments werehighlighted, respectively in the central

and southern areas of the studied area(Fig. 11).

Another area, with an average density ofheritage elements, is highlighted alongthe anthropic lakes Băneasa, Herăstrăuand Floreasca, which concentrate themost archaeological monuments.

The Heat Map analysis highlights alsosome areas with a lower density ofhistorical monuments (Piperaneighborhood, Bucureștii Noineighborhood). Even in these areas thereare representative historical monumentsfor the study area: the National Museumof Romanian Aviation (Pipera area) orBazilescu Parceling (Bucureștii Noi) (Fig.11).

Fig. 11. Density of historical monuments in thenorthern area of Bucharest.

In the northern extremity of the studiedarea there is Băneasa Forest, whichexplains the lack of historical monuments(except for a commemorativemonument). At the same time, this areahas registered, in the last years, under theinfluence of the accelerated dynamics ofthe tertiary sector, also an extension ofthe residential area (e.g. in thenortheastern extremity of the residentialcomplex "Greenfield", in Băneasa Forest:the luxury residential complex "Stejarii")(Scăunaș et al., 2019).


115

Taking into account the diversity of thecultural heritage elements and theircultural importance, three culturalcircuits are proposed for a better culturaland tourist capitalization, beingconnected also with other similarobjectives located in other areas of thecity. The creation of the cultural routes inareas with significant cultural heritagehave the role to geographically connecttourist attractions, as well of improvingthe colaboration and clustering betweentourism stakeholders (Ispas et al., 2015).

The three thematic cultural routes consistof different points (geographical points)that belong to certain categories ofcultural heritage. The routes wereestablished based on the selection of thetypologies of historical monuments thatare among the oldest cultural objectivesin the studied area, which are of interestfor the local population and differenttypes of tourists. The architecturalheritage elements and the industrialhistorical buildings could attract moreyoung tourists, while religiousmonuments may be attracting moreadults and seniors.

The cultural circuits induce visitors todiscover the significative cultural heritageelements and to visit them. Also, thecultural circuits proposed increase thestudy area’s attractiveness.

Thre main obiectives were set for thecreation of cultural circuits: awareness ofthe local population of the existence of asignificant cultural heritage andidentification with it; conservation andpromotion of local cultural heritage;grating a special place to the culturaltourism between the economic activitiesof the study area and alowing the highercapitalization of the elements of culturalheritage.

The first cultural route is proposed inorder to include the two religiouslandmarks located within the northernarea of Bucharest municipality in thetourist circuit, in relation to otherreligious objectives built in the samearchitectural style. The role of this circuitis to highlight religious landmarks witharchitectural, historical, aesthetic andsymbolic valences, elements that givethem representativeness at the capital citylevel (Fig. 12).

The two religious objectives are amongthe oldest historical monuments in thestudy area (18th century).

Fig. 12. The proposed cultural circuits in thenorthern area of Bucharest.

Their construction is related to thenames of some personalities of theRomanian culture who also played animportant role in the local politics ofthat period.

Their limited number does not allow theirindividual valorization. The importanceof choosing this route is related to thehistorical value of the churches that havea close connection with the historicalevolution of the studied area. It isconsidered important to connect themwith other religious landmarks inBucharest with similar architecturalvalues (neo-Romanian style) and built inthe same period.


116

The religious cultural circuit includeswithin its boundaries, along with thechurches of St. Nicholas and St. Sofia,also other buildings located in thecentral part of the capital city: Colţeachurch (1702), Sfântu Gheorghe Nouchurch (1698-1707), Stavreopoleos(1724), Doamnei church (1678-1658),Church of the Saints (1680) (Fig. 12).

The religious circuit highlights the oldestchurches in the capital city that areexponents of the Neo-classical Romanianstyle that survived the demolition of thehistorical monuments of the communistperiods.

The proposal of the cultural circuit ofarchitectural interest has the role tohighlight the interwar buildings withinthe Jianu-Bordei and Negroponteparcelings, representative for both thestudy area and the capital city, bothfrom an architectural point of view andfrom a historical point of view.

This cultural route was dened as apath of historical signicance of thecapital city, because it represents adecoupage in the urban fabric ofBucharest from the beginning of the20th century; it resulted from thetransformation of a rural landscape intoan urban area with high architecturalvalues. The two parcelings have atraditional urban fabric (some buildingsare in the neo-Romanian style), withunique elements of high architecturalvalue.

The third route proposed has a commonthematic denominator represented by theelements of industrial heritage buildingsthat occupy a special place within thecultural heritage of the northern area ofBucharest. Within the studied area thereare a number of industrial objectives with

a certain historical, architectural, culturaland social value.

In addition to the industrial buildingsclassified as historical monuments(Băneasa railway station, Ford BranchEnsemble), other industrial buildingswith a certain historical and architecturalvalue are proposed to be included in thecultural circuit: Borsec administrativebuildings, Zarea sparkling wine factory,both located in Bucureștii Noineighborhood, the former glucose factorytransformed into a hotel (Piperaneighborhood).

The proposal of creating this culturalcircuit also results from the need todraw attention to lesser-knownindustrial heritage buildings, but whichare important from a historical point ofview and, not least, technologicalvalences: the Zarea sparkling winefactory is still functional and guidedtours meant to explain to visitors howthe sparkling wine is obtained can beorganized.

The role of the cultural circuits is tocapitalize on local cultural heritage, todevelop sustainable tourism, on onehand, but also to facilitate theaccumulation of knowledge, mutalunderstanding and closeness within andbetween generations.

The history of the cultural heritagebuildings in the northern area ofBucharest is closely related to theterritorial and economical evolution ofthe capital city. Including theseobiectives in touristic circuits offers thepossibility to tell their story, which alsocontributes, to the deciphering of thehistory and culture of the area with ahistory about 300 years old, of which 70years marked the accession to the


117

capital city and integration of the areain the economic and socio-cultural lifeof Bucharest municipality.

This territory with a rural backgroundhas generated its reorganization as asupport space for the population of thecapital city, both as a supplier ofagricultural products and recreationalservices.

This territory was also a support spacefor the construction of infrastructureelements that served the capital city(Băneasa International Airport, BăneasaRailway Station). The proximity to thecapital city also influenced the mannerof building the infrastructure elements(the airport, the railway station)inscribed in remarkable architecturalpatterns, being the works of renownedarchitects. To these are added civilbuildings that, over time, haveundergone important transformationsin the way of use, some of thembecoming cultural institutions(museums).

Moreover, the inclusion of the formersuburban communes within theadministrative limits of the capital cityinvolved the elaboration of landsystematization plans, which resulted inindividualized parceling through civilconstructions falling within the neo-Romanian architectural style, whichjustified their classification as protectedurban ensembles.

It is noted that, although the northernarea of Bucharest has registered a recentevolution, it presents a significantnumber of historical monuments, fallingwithin different time periods, amongwhich those with tourist value datefrom the pre-modern and modernperiods.

Also, among the architecturalmonuments with tourist valences, it isnoted that almost half of the total numberof buildings are registered in the valuegroup A (of national importance). Thehigh number of buildings registered inthe upper value group draws attention tothe need for their higher capitalization,due to the fact that they arerepresentative for Bucharestmunicipality, as they are cultural andarchitectural landmarks at national levelas well.

For example, the National Museum ofRomanian Aviation is the onlyinstitution with an aeronautical profilein the country and it has a heritage thatincludes movable cultural assets thatconstitute unique collections at nationallevel (aircrafts, aircraft engines, patents,uniforms, flight suits).

Another example is the Folk ArtMuseum, whose cultural significance alsoresults from being the first museum inthe field in Bucharest.

Some buildings are individualized bymultiple valences: architectural, historicaland even social valences. Băneasa railwaystation, a building with a modernistarchitecture, also has historicalsignificance, being the station that servedthe royal family during the interwarperiod. Currently, the station has the roleof serving the Presidents of Romania,being used also by the members of theroyal family.

4. ConclusionsBased on the territorial and functional-chronological criteria, the historicalmonuments in the northern area ofBucharest were identified and analyzed,in close connection with its spatial-temporal evolution.


118

The analysis of the historical monumentsin the study area highlights a greaterconcentration near the anthropic lakesarranged along the course of Colentina;two more areas are added according tothe values of the high density of historicalmonuments in Băneasa and Floreascaneighborhoods.

The predominant location of thecultural heritage elements in theBăneasa and Floreasca neighborhoods isreflected by the territorial and historicalevolution in the previous stages,marked by the vicinity of these areas tothe capital city.

The spatial-temporal evolution wasintertwined with the economic one,which determined, beside the presence ofluxury residential areas, also of thebuildings with economic function.

There is also to be noticed the presence ofarchitecturally remarkable heritagebuildings, individualized in the northernlandscape of Bucharest, without beingincluded in protected urban ensembles,respectively villas built during theinterwar period that have been culturallyreused since the beginning of the 20thcentury, being arranged as museums,which gives them increased touristattractiveness.

The spatial-temporal evolution of thestudied area experienced a greaterdynamic at the end of the 19th century,marked by the expansion of the capitalcity that assimilated the suburbancommunes located on its northern limit.

Over time, the two areas merged andresulted in an urban landscape markedby greater economic prosperity whencompared to other areas at the capital citylevel. This situation has favored the

creation of a space marked by residentialareas with profound architectural valences.

Some buildings, considered architecturaljewels, have acquired an obvious culturaland, implicitly, a tourist function.

The elaboration of this study hashighlighted the typological diversity ofthe historical monuments in the studiedarea, as well as the need for theiroptimum use by proposing theirinclusion in cultural circuits focused onthe dominant types of elements ofcultural heritage. Cultural circuits areaddressed to several categories oftourists. The cultural routes have the roleto ensure the discovery of lesser-knowncultural attractions.

At the same time, this study allowed arigorous assessment of the culturalheritage elements of the studied area,which individualizes it between the otherareas within Bucharest with profoundhistorical and cultural values,contributing to the cultural and touristimage of the capital city.

AcknowledgmentThis work was supported by a grant ofthe Romanian Ministry of Research andInnovation CCCDI - UEFISCDI, projectnumber 52PCCDI/2018 (PATCULT#RO)PN-III-P1-1.2-PCCDI-2017-0686: “Complexmultidisciplinary platform for integrative andsystematic research of identities and tangibleand non-tangible cultural heritage in Romania".

REFERENCESAbate D. (2019), Built-heritage multi-temporal

monitoring through photogrammetry and2D/3D change detection algorithms, Studiesin Conservation 64(7):423-434.

Allen A. D. (2012), Economics of historicpreservation: dollars and sense,Transylvanian Review of AdministrativeScience: 11-18.


119

Antonescu D., Iordache R. -M. (2019), Impact ofregional operational programme on culturalheritage. The Romanian case, Journal ofUrban and Landscape Planning 4:73-84.

Bellu R. (1999), Small monograph of the railways inRomania [in Romanian], EdituraPubliferon, Bucharest, Romania.

Benslimane N., Biara R. W., Benslimane A. (2020),Influence of the prospective technology in thefacade's desfiguration of the historical houses.Case of the old Ksar of Bechar, InternationalJournal of Consevation Science 11(1):61-74.

Berindei D., Bonifaciu S. (1980), Bucharest –touristic guide [in Romanian], EdituraSport Turism, Bucharest, Romania.

Boutsi A. M., Ioanidis C., Soile S. (2019), Anintegrated approach to 3D web visualizationof cultural heritage heterogeneous datasets,Remote Sensing 11(21):1-26.

Boștenaru Dan M., Dill A., Mihăilă M. (2017),Integration of reused and retrofitted buildingsin architectureal-cultural surroundings inSouth-West Germany, Journal of Urban andLandscape Planning 3:1-11.

Bulai A. T., Rosu L., Banica A. (2019), Patterns ofurban fire occurrence in Iași city (Romania),Present Environment and SustainableDevelopment 13(2):87-102.

Carbonara G. (2018), Earthquakes, reconstructionand monumental heritage, ConservationScience in Cultural Heritage 18:41-64.

Chen C. S., Chiu Y. H., Tsai L. C. (2018),Evaluating the adaptive reuse of historicbuildings through multicriteria decision-making, Habitat International 81:12-23.

Coman H. M. (2019), Communist-era developmentsin Romanian town centres – issues of identityand cultural relevance, Acta TechnicaNapocencis: Civil Engineering &Architecture 62(1):54-59.

Council of Europe (2015), Cultural routesmanagement: from theory to practice, EuropeCouncil F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex, France.

Council of Europe (2008), Treaty on the Functioningof the European Union, Official Journal ofthe European Union C115:47-199.

Crova C., Miraglia F. (2018), Use and efficacy ofthermography for stratigraphic analysis ofhistorical buildings, Conservation Sciencein Cultural Heritage 18:135-146.

Drăghici C., Papuc R. M., Iordache Ș., Dobrea C.R., Pintilii R. D., Teodorescu C., PeptenatuD., Diaconu D., Simion A. (2015), The roleof European Capital of Culture status instructuring economic profile of Sibiu,Romania, In: Bektaș Ç. (Ed.), Proceedings of

the 4th World Conference on Business,Economics and Management, 30 April – 2May 2015, Efes, Izmir, Turkey, ProcediaEconomics and Finance, vol. 26, pp. 785-791.

Esmaielzadeh S., Ahmadi H., Hosseini S. A.(2018), Damage detection of concrete gravitydams using Hilbert-Huang metod, Journalof Applied Engineering Sciences 8 (21):7-16.

Fairclough G., Harrison R., Jameson J. H. J. (Eds.),(2008), The heritage reader, Routledge,London, New York, United Kingdom,United States of America.

Fantazi I., Hecham B. Z., Petrișor A. -I. (2019), Theimpact of the absence of communication on thesucces of rehabilitation projects of the builtheritage: the case of the old city ofConstantine, Present Environment andSustainable Development 13(1):225-240.

Ferretti V., Boterro M., Mondini G. (2014), Decisionmaking and cultural heritage: an applicationof the multi-attribute value theory for thereuse of historical buildings, Journal ofCultural Heritage 15(6):644-655.

Fioretti G., Acciani A., Buongiorno R., CatellaM.A., Acquafredda P. (2019),Photogrammetric survey and 3D model asexprimental tool for mapping of polychromemarble in artworks: the case of two Baroquealtars in Bari (Italy), Journal ofArchitectural Conservation 25(1-2):90-103.

Galiano-Garrigós A., Gonzáles-Avilés Á., Rizo-Maestre C., Andújar-Montoya D. (2019),Energy efficiency and economic viability as adecision factors in the rehabilitation of historicbuildings, Sustainability 11(18):1-27.

Gavrilă E. (2015), The repertoire of the settlements ofTei culture in București and Ilfov country [inRomanian], Revista de CercetăriArheologice și Numismatice 1:42-66.

Georgescu F., Cernovodeanu P., Cebuc A. (1966),Monuments in Bucharest guide [inRomanian], Editura Meridiane, Bucharest,Romania.

Germinario C., Gorrasi M., Izzo F., Langella A.,Limongiello M., Mercurio M., MusmeciD., Santoriello A., Grifa C. (2020), Damagediagnosis of Ponte Rotto, a Roman bridgealong the ancient Appia, InternationalJournal of Consevation Science 11:277-290.

Grecu A., Gruia A.K., Marin M., Banuta M.,Olteanu C., Constantin I., Gadoiu M.,Teodorescu C., Dobrea R.C., Drăghici C.C.(2019), Specificity of sustainable structuraldynamics of local economy in Romaniantourist resorts, Sustainability 11:1-21.


120

Guerrero A. E. A., Gil O. S., Irujo D.L. (2018),Rehabilitation and reuse of the urban heritage.The historical centers of new Spanish politicalcapitals declared as World Heritage,Cuadernos de Turismo 42:15-45.

Guimarães P. (2018), The evolution of old shoppingcentres in the town centre of Braga, Portugal,Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis10(2): 127-141.

Guzman P., Pedeira Roders A. R., ColenbranderB. (2018), Impacts of common urbandevelopment factors on cultural conservationin World Heritage cities: an indicators-basedanalysis, Sustainability 10:1-18.

Hamma W., Merciu F.C., Petrișor A.-I., CercleuxA.-L. (2018), La conservation de labiodiversité peut-elle être une sourced'inspiration pour patrimoine architectural?,Lucrările Seminarului Geografic DimitrieCantemir 46(1):105-119.

Hammersley R., Westlake T. (1994), Urbanconservation policy in the Czech Republic,Planning Practice and Research 9(2):139-146.

Ilea R.-G., Manea C.-A., Antonescu M.A. (2019),The main characteristics of the urban climatein relation to the built space evolution inBucharest, Romania, Present Environmentand Sustainable Development 13(1):69-79.

Ilovan O. -R., Adorean E. -C., Gligor V., Maroși Z.,Voicu C.-G., Dulamă M.E., Nicula A.-S.(2018), Inhabitans' perceptions of the centralsquares and quality of life in Cluj-Napoca,Romania, Territorial Identity andDevelopment 3(2):104-133.

Ispas A., Constantin C. P., Candrea A. N. (2015),An examination of visitors' interest in touristcards and cultural routes in the case of aRomanian destination, TransilvanianReview of Administrative Sciences,46E:107-125.

Jimenez M. M. V., Gutierrez-Carrillo M. L. (2019),The Alhambra master plan (2007-2020) as astrategic model of preventive conservation ofcultural heritage, Vitruvio InternationalJournal of Architectural Technology andSustainability 4(2):59-74.

Kádár M., Benedek I. (2019), Preliminary analysisfor place branding and promotion of theWestern Region of Sălaj County, Romania,Territorial Identity and Development4(1):50-72.

Lidelöw S., Örn T., Luciani A., Rizzo A. (2019),Energy-efficiency measures for heritagebuildings: a literature review, SustainableCities and Society 45:231-242.

López L., Torres J. C., Arroyo G., Cano P., MartínD. (2020), An efficient GPU approach fordesigning 3D cultural heritage informationsystem, Journal of Cultural Heritage41:142-151.

Lyu L., Sun F., Huang R. (2019), Innovation-basedurbanization: evidence from 270 cities at theprefecture level or above in China, Journal ofGeographical Sciences 29:1283-1299.

Marvasi M., Cavalieri D., Mastromei G., CasacciaA., Perito B. (2019), Omics technologies foran in-depth investigation of biodeterioration ofcultural heritage, InternationalBiodeterioration & Biodegradation 144:1-7.

Matečić I. (2016), Specific characteristics of thetangible cultural heritage valutation processin tourism, Acta Turistica 28(1):73-100.

Merciu C., Merciu G. -L., Cercleux L., Drăghici C.(2014), Conversion of industrial heritage asvector for cultural regeneration, in: Ilhan A.C., Miralay F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2ndWorld Conference on Design, Art, andEducation, 09-10 May 2013, Bucharest,Romania, Procedia Social and BehavioralSciences vol. 122, pp. 162-166.

Merciu C., Ianoș I., Merciu G., Jones R., PomeroyG. (2018a), Mapping accessibility forearthquake hazard response in the historicurban centre of Bucharest, Natural Hazardsand Earth System Sciences 18(7):2011-2026.

Merciu C., Merciu G.-L., Cercleux A.L. (2018b),The role of the museums for the developmentof cultural tourism in Bucharest municipality,in: Orăștean R., Ogrean C., Mărginean S.V. (Eds.), Springer Proceedings in Businessand Economics, Innovative BusinessDevelopment – a global Perspective,Proccedings of 25th International EconomicConference of Sibiu (IECS 2018), 11-12 May2018, Sibiu, Romania, pp. 173-186.

Merciu F. -C., Cercleux A. -L., Merciu G. -L..,Secăreanu G. (2020), Evaluation of theeconomic values of heritage buildings in thehistorical center of Bucharest Municipality,In: Orăștean R., Ogrean C., Mărginean S.V. (Eds.), Springer Proceedings in Businessand Economics: Organisations andPerformance in a Complex World volume,Proccedings of 25th International EconomicConference of Sibiu (IECS 2019), 24-25 May2019, Sibiu, Romania, in press.

Mihăilescu V. (2003), Evolution of a city-Bucharest[in Romanian], Editura Paideia,Bucharest, Romania.


121

Moscovici A. -M., Vilceanu C. B., Grecea C.,Herban S. (2019), Spatial data geoportal forlocal administration-solution for smart cities,Journal of Environmental Protection andEcology 20(3):1374-1383.

Musolino D. (2018), The mental maps of Italianentrepreneurships: a quali-quantitativeapproach, Journal of Cultural Geography35(2):251-273.

Nesticò A., Macchiaroli M., Pipolo O. (2015), Costsand benefits in the recovery of historicbuildings: the application of an economicmodel, Sustainability 7(11):14661–14676.

Nicu I. C. (2017), Tracking natural and anthropicrisks from historical maps as a tool forcultural heritage assessment: a case study,Environmental Earth Sciences 76(9):330.

Orchiston C. (2012), Tourism business preparedness,resilience and disaster planning in a region ofhigh seismic risk: the case of the SouthernAlps, New Zeeland, Current Issues inTourism 16(5):477-494.

Ochkovskay M., Gerasimenko V. (2018), Buildingsfrom the Socialist past as part of a city's brandidentity: the case of Warsaw, Bulletin ofGeography. Socio-Economic Series 39:113-127.

Papazoglou G. (2019), Society and culture: culturalpolicies driven by local authorities as a factorin local development – the example of theMunicipality of Xanthi-Greece,Sustainability 2:2625–2639.

Polat Z., Demirel O. (2016), Evaluation of alternativetourism in the light of natural, cultural andvisual resources in Turkey landscape, Journalof Environmental Protection and Ecology17(3):1220-1228.

Prelipcean A. A. (2018), Sustainable regeneration ofurban built heritage in post-socialist culturalcontext, Acta Technica Napocencis: CivilEngineering & Architecture 61(3):173-185.

Pendlebury J. (2013), Conservation values, theauthorised heritage discourse and theconseration-planning assemblage,International Journal of Heritage Studies19(7):709-727.

Randazzo L., Ricca M., Pellegrino D., La Russa D.,Marrone A., Macchia A., Rivaroli L., EneiF., La Russa M.F. (2020), Anti-foulingadditives for the consolidation ofarchaeological mortars in underwaterenvironment: efficacy tests performed on theApsidal Fishpond of Castrum Novum (Rome,Italy), International Journal ofConsevation Science 11:243-250.

Ribera F., Nesticò A., Cucco P., Maselli G. (2020),A multicriteria approach to identify the

highest and best use for historical buildings,Journal of Cultural Heritage 41:166-177.

Roca Z., de Nazare Oliveira-Roca M. (2007),Affirmation of territorial identity: Adevelopment policy issue, Land Use Policy24:434-442.

Rodriguez M., Franco M. (2019), Composite index tomeasure the performance of today's creativecities: a holistic perspective, Journal ofUrban and Regional Analysis 11(2):113-157.

Sandachi G. P., Hadîrcă D. (2005), Prince GeorgeValentin Bibescu: the biography of a traveler[in Romanian], Editura Vivaldi,Bucharest, România.

Scăunaș S., Păunescu C., Merciu G. -L. (2019),Spatial temporal analysis of land cover anduse changes using GIS tools. Case studyBăneasa neighborhood, Bucharest, Journal ofApplied Engineering Sciences 9(22):187-194.

Sesana E., Gagnon A. S., Bonazza A., Hughes J. J.(2020), An integrated approach for assessingthe vulnerability of World Heritage Sites toclimate change impacts, Journal of CulturalHeritage 41:211-224.

Spiridon P., Sandu I., Stratulat L. (2017), Theconscious deterioration and degradation of thecultural heritage, International Journal ofConservation Science 8(1): 81-88.

Stan A. (2016), Reconfiguring the macro urbanlandscape of Bucharest based on its narativetraits, Journal of Urban and LandscapePlanning 1:22-34.

Stan A. M. (2017), Knowledge dissemination aboutcultural heritage in post-1989 Romania.Several examples, Territorial Identity andDevelopment 2(2):49-57.

Stephenson J. (2008), The cultural values model: anintegrated approach to values in landscapes,Landscape and Urban Planning 84(2):127-139.

Suditu B. (2016), Bucharest in dwellings andinhabitans from the beginning until yesterday(1459-1989) [in Romanian], EdituraCompania, Bucharest, Romania.

Vukonić B. (2018) Economic theory and tourismeconomics, Acta Turistica 30:17-63.

Tache A. T., Sandu I. C. A., Popescu O. -C.,Petrișor A. -I. (2019), UAV solutions for theprotection and management of culturalheritage. Case study: Halmyris archaeologicalsite, International Journal of ConsevationScience 9(4):795-804.

Themistocleous K. (2020), The use of UAVs forcultural heritage and archaeology, in:Hadjimitsis D., Themistocleous K., Cuca


122

B., Agapiou A., Lysandrou V., LasaponaraR., Masini N., Schreier G. (Eds.), Remotesensing for archaeology and culturallandscapes: best practices and perspectivesacross Europe and the Middle East, BookSeries Springer Remote SensingPhotogrammetry, Cham, Switzerland, pp.241-269.

Vardopoulos I. (2019), Critical sustainabledevelopment factors in the adaptive reuse ofurban industrial buildings. A fuzzyDEMATEL approach, Sustainable Citiesand Society 50:1-12.

Veldpaus L., Pereira Roders A. R., Colenbrander J.F. (2013), Urban heritage: putting the pastinto the future , The Historic Environment4(1):3-18.

Vesalon L., Creţan R. (2019), "Little Vienna" or"European avant-garde ci ty?" Brandingnarratives in a Romanian ci ty, Journal ofUrban and Regional Analysis 11(1):19-34.

Qualiarini E., Lucesoli M., Bernardini G. (2019),Rapid tools for assessing buildings heritage'sseismic vulnerability: a preliminary reliabilityanalysis, Journal of Cultural Heritage39:130-139.

Yilmaz B., Saricam S., Aslan F., Atik A. (2014),Landscape characteristics of Battalg aziarchaeological and h istorical settl ement inMalatya, Turkey , i ts protection problemsand solutions, Journal of EnvironmentalProtection and Ecology 15(3):1181-1190.

Received: 24 March 2020 • Revised: 14 April 2020 • Accepted: 27 April 2020

Article d istributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND)

Date post:	23-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Recent Urbanisation and the Challenges in Capitalising ...

Documents