C O N T E X T 1 0 5 : J U LY 2 0 0 8 5 Letters… People in glass houses should not throw stones From Dennis Rodwell I should like to thank Tony Redman for acknowledging in his article ‘A threat worse than Ceauşescu’ (Context 104, May 2008) the urgency of the warning given in my conference report in the immediately previous issue (‘From globalisation to localisation in central and eastern Europe’, Context 103, March 2008): namely, that in the absence of policies that marry the aspirations of post-communist societies of central and eastern Europe with their surviving, centuries-old built heritage, the conservationist’s paradise of 1990 has all the makings of the conservationist’s nightmare of the early 21st century. Since 2001 I have had the privilege of visiting Romania a dozen times and of working on a wide variety of assignments involving individuals, non-governmental organisations and governmental bodies within the country, and capacitybuilding programmes supported by agencies and institutions from outside. These assignments have mostly, but not exclusively, taken me across the region known today as Transylvania – the focus of Redman’s polemic. As a Brit working extensively abroad in recent years I have found it imperative to avoid any hint of judgemental selfrighteousness when seeking to assist others in their countries to resolve conservation and related urban planning challenges that they – if not we ourselves – recognise have not always been addressed with unmitigated success in the UK. As a regular participant in Romania I am aware, for example, of the caution that needs to be taken in addressing the increasingly pervasive DIY culture. Contrary to Redman’s report, the Romanian-owned chain based in Sibiu, Bricomat, has a clear meaning in the national language, namely ‘DIY materials’.The meaning of one of its competitors, Bricostore (with outlets also in Croatia and Hungary), is selfevident.The word ‘brico’ is a shortening of the Romanian word ‘bricolaj’, which in turn is taken from its counterpart in French, ‘bricolage’. It is symptomatic of the perception that the DIY culture originated in Britain, that the Frenchbased international chain of DIY stores trades under the name of ‘Mr Bricolage’ – not ‘M Bricolage’ as linguistic purists might expect. Just to underline the generic branding, Mr Bricolage has also now opened stores in Romania. We reap as we sow.We have extensively failed to direct the DIY culture in the conservation interest in Britain. B&Q, for example, has for years sold the same paint and other materials that Transylvanians can now buy in their DIY stores. Are we really in a secure position to preach on this issue to others? We also need to display caution – not least in a professional journal such as Context – in repeating street gossip about corruption and bribery. From my travels across Romania I could be forgiven for the conclusion that everyone in Romania considers everyone else to be corrupt. The word is used loosely and rarely has any legalistic connotations. Popular usage can reflect a misunderstanding, or indeed a mature reflection, on how the free market operates when compared to the pre-1990 command economy, before the onset of market forces and fashion. In modern Romania the concept of altruistic disinterest has not yet taken hold.The stereotype of Romania as endemically corrupt is no more valid than the anticipation in some guidebooks on Scotland that it rains 24/7, 52 weeks of the year, and that everyone wears a kilt. As a campaigning tactic, notably today in Sighişoara, trading insults is foolish and doing untold damage to the conservation cause. Redman refers to ‘unsuitable improvements even in world heritage sites’. He specifically contests the use of UPVC windows. So do I, wherever and whenever. But how can we preach to Romanians when, for example, no Article 4 directions are in place in the conservation areas of our very own world heritage site of Blaenavon Industrial Landscape, and where the recent multimillion pound, grant-aided programmes of housing rehabilitation and repair have actively supported the use of plastic windows and metal-faced doors? Look-alike, yes. Conservation standard, clearly not.The result of ‘corruption’ by marketing and fashion? Or simply a pragmatic approach by the local authority in the broader interest of avoiding alienation among the 6,500 population of a socio-economically disadvantaged SouthWales community? There are very few instances in Romania where regulatory provisions are made for architectural details.There is no more need to obtain consent for ‘unsuitable improvements’ in a world heritage site inTransylvania than there is in SouthWales – except in both cases in the limited instances of listed buildings or monuments.Whereas the current plan-making system in Romania has its imperfections (where in the world is the democratic process foolproof?), it is not the case that developers can ‘dictate amendments’ to detailed plans (PUZs). Such plans are subject to approval by the responsible local council. Further, repetition of the cold war rhetoric about Nicolae Ceauşescu as the arch-vandal of post-second world war Europe needs to be balanced by recognition of the damage caused to the architectural heritage of the UK over the equivalent period of time through nationwide programmes of slum clearance, central area redevelopment, urban highways, and the initial projections of our government’s 2003 pathfinder initiative (400,000 houses to be destroyed). Any balanced statistical overview would almost certainly demonstrate that as a heritage vandal Ceauşescu was, by comparison, a rank amateur; just as Vlad Dracul was a mere shadow of the fictional character of Dracula portrayed in Bram Stoker’s novels and Hollywood films. The whole of central and eastern Europe is facing the same threats to its architectural and urban heritage as is Romania. Patronising approaches that do not ally post-communist socio-economic aspirations with the conservation interest are almost certainly doomed to failure. The pressing need is for dialogue: a meeting of minds to common purpose between different sectors and interests – including of course the public utilities. Much as I would wish it to be otherwise, it is not immediately obvious within Romania that Britons have either the best track record or the best skills to take a lead in assisting this process. Indeed, we have set the precedents for citycentre commercial redevelopments and conservation-free domestic improvements that are now being copied across the whole of the former eastern bloc. In Romania, especially, we need to display both modesty and balanced understanding if our involvement is to prove lastingly beneficial. On this condition, Redman’s pessimistic conclusion can be shown to be misplaced. Dennis Rodwell
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=