Marginalia. Architectures of Uncertain Margins 83
Reclaiming a Land of Overlapping Frontiers: e Romanian Seaside until the 20th Century
Irina Băncescu PhD, Assistant Professor, “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest, Romania [email protected]
KEYWORDS: Romanian seaside; tourism; balneotherapy; Constanța; waterfront; collective imaginary; city image
is research focuses on the marginal condition of the north-west Black Sea coast, until the beginning of the 20th century. Remote and uncertain, this piece of land was located at the extremities of dominant empires and frequently at the centre of political disputes. Bordering a stormy sea that could bring both friends and enemies into its poorly defended harbours, completely isolated from the mainland by the Danube and by the hostile and deserted Dobrudja steppe, this strip of coast struggled to confront its inherent liminal condition. All these overlapping frontiers and social textures slowly determined a hybrid cultural identity, giving it layered meanings, among which its marine condition stood out as a de ning feature. What was the role of the sea in shaping the symbolic identity of Constanța? Does its imaginary have any consequences on the urban fabric? Even if, as Charles King says,1 the images and their mental associations might not be that obvious, they do exist and this article tries to highlight the importance of the sea as a de ning agent of local history, synthetically exposing the story of the becoming of the coastal landscape. By framing a cultural perspective on this borderland, the study retraces the gradual processes of discovery, construction and identi cation with the seascape, highlighting social, cultural, economic and politic e ects. By alternating objective analysis with subjective views such as testimonials from travellers and locals with various professional backgrounds, the text proposes a concise critical reading of both the physical context of the seaside and the cultural imaginary that impregnated it, from distant contemplation to the pragmatic invention of beach practices. A series of economic and political events during the second half of the 19th century turned the Romanians’ face towards the sea: Dobrudja and the Black Sea ocially attracted the attention of authorities, elites and the entire society. e text focuses on this temporal interval when signi cant changes took place on the Black Sea shore, and follows its transformation until the beginning of World War I. e case study is Constanța,2 as it successfully embodied all the contrasts and changes taking place during this period.
On the idea of limit between sea and land
e strip between sea and land has always been a frontier. An insecure and hybrid place, a eld belonging either to the sea, or to the land, this collision area is usually dynamic and tense. For maritime cities, this boundary represents the symbolic place of origin of the idea of urban limit, a place where the city interrogates its form and its relationship with the territory.3 e waterfront is a mutable landscape, indicating the extent to which the city–water interface is the meeting place of permanence and inde niteness, of arti cial and natural, of man and nature – a symbolic
1 Charles King, Marea Neagră. O istorie [The Black Sea. A History] (Timişoara: Brumar, 2005), 24. 2 Depending on the context of the reference, various names of the city will be used throughout the text: Constanța, Custendje, Chiustenge, Küstendge, etc. 3 Alessandra Forino, Paesaggi sull’acqua [Water Landscapes] (Florence: Alinea, 2003), 11. 84 studies in History & Theory of Architecture
articulation between two worlds.4 But, as Rosario Assunto asserts, the waterfront is “a limit that rather unites than separates.”5 Initially, cities related to the water only in technological and functional terms, by building bridges, piers, equipments, reinforcements of the banks; the waterfront had not yet become an element for de ning the urban form. During the 18th century, the limit towards the water started to become “critical for the urban embellishment, on a symbolic, representative and political level.”6 e aesthetic characterisation of the waterfront was the sign of a gradual urban opening towards the natural landscape by articulating the territory to the scale of the city through architecture. e disappearance of the defensive requirements and the recti cation and regularisation of waterways transformed the walls or the embankments into an urban façade that visually dominated the natural territory. e character of the coastal landscape is ambivalent: its physical features prevent it from o ering a clear unequivocal image, because it is an element that ful ls two opposite purposes – limit and connection. It is a material limit between two incompatible domains, but also a central element that expresses its articulation role. e coastline may be read in two manners: horizontally, parallel with the shore, it o ers a subtle image that is impossible to control; vertically, perpendicular to the shore, it o ers an immediate, concrete and diverse image. During history, this ambiguity determined a landscape without a clear image that hardly found support in the social visions and the mental imaginary.7
e lure of the sea in Western imaginary. e evolution of the seaside landscape
In his recount of the “invention of the sea,” Alain Corbin states that, ever since Antiquity, geometry was the rst tool used in the process of mastering the landscape, by tackling the very imprecision of the limit between land and water. Sacred texts usually depicted the water expanse as an image that inspires fear and repulsion: “there is no sea in the garden of Eden.”8 e symbolic interpretation of the limit between civilisation and wilderness, between the certain and the unde ned is to be found throughout classical culture: everything outside the limit concealed an unknown order, akin to chaos, incomprehensible and impossible to relate to the human scale. Later, the Enlightenment provided adequate instruments to measure and to represent this space, thus delivered from chaos and slowly becoming part of the real world. During the 19th century, the bourgeois modern society ocially opened the city towards the water, a process which was deemed representative for progress, modern communication and exchanges: water appeared as the unifying element of this newborn world. Moreover, in this period the panoramic perspective was favoured, because the space of the belvedere o ered a total, synthetic image of the landscape that could be instantly seen and thus dominated: “the democratic bourgeois receives, as the king on its throne, the homage of the Nature gathered at his feet.”9 e waterfront dedicated to public promenade and panoramic contemplation became the privileged scene of both the natural territory and the social spectacle of modernity.
4 Ibid. 5 Rosario Assunto, Il paesaggio e l’estetica. Natura e storia [The Landscape and Esthetics] (Naples: Giannini, 1973), 34. 6 Renzo Dubbini, Geografie dello sguardo. Visione e paesaggio in età moderna [Geography of the Gaze: Urban and Rural Vision in Early Modern Europe] (Torino: Einaudi, 1994), 52. 7 Carmen Carbone, “L’analisi della costa come esperienza estetica” [Analysis of the Coast as an Esthetic Experience], in La riva perduta. Piano di monitoraggio e di riqualificazione delle fasce costiere italiane [The Lost Waterfront. Plan of Monitoring and Rehabilitation of the Italian Sea-Coast], ed. Ruberto De Rubertis (Rome: Officina, 2005), 41-50. 8 Alain Corbin, L’invenzione del mare. L’Occidente e il fascino della spiaggia 1750 – 1840 (Venice: Marsilio, 1990), 12; primary work: Le territorie du vide: L’Occident et le désir de rivage1750 – 1840 [The Territory of the Void: The Occident and the Lure of the Sea] (Paris: Flammarion, 1990). 9 André Corboz, Ordine sparso. Saggi sull’arte, il metodo, la città e il territorio [Sparse Order. Studies on Art, Method, City and Territory], ed. Paola Viganò (Milano: Urbanistica Franco Angeli, 1998), 187. Marginalia. Architectures of Uncertain Margins 85
e practice of visiting coastal areas for leisure originated sometime in the 18th century. e evolution of the image that the littoral landscape acquired in the Western world was interpreted as a “transition towards exoticism,”10 since previously the seaside was seen as an extreme place of passion and fear. Port cities evoked marine dangers and gathered strangers: “the sea was for centuries, in the collective imaginary, a space that escaped the human laws. Consequently, capable of arousing fears and symbolic suggestions that awaken fear and disorder […] the collective mentality frequently recognized a strong cultural link between sea and madness or sin.”11 Luginbühl gives three reasons for the reversal of this image: the public acceptance of the littoral followed the experience of leisure in rural areas, which was the rst step towards the discovery of the natural spectacle; the development of science; the exploratory journeys that improved maps and induced the gradual emergence of the desire for the “exotic.”12 e culture and philosophy of the time progressively led to the idea of contemplating in nity, which was often epitomized by the sea. e seashore became a place of meditation on the romantic concept of the sublime. In this moment appeared what Corbin de nes as “the lure of the sea,” associated with the romantic desire of self discovery.13 e new perspective of the littoral also stood out during the 18th century because of the English contributions regarding the establishment of the practice of sea bathing in a landscape that was appraised for its health bene ts. e spa fashion promoted the therapeutic purpose, but soon that aspect was overwhelmed by leisure. e sea rituals of Western aristocrats were to be soon emulated by the middle class bourgeoisie and later be di used in all other layers of society.
e sea not as limit, but as a link to the world
Historian Charles King proposes a general reading of the evolution of the Black Sea shore not from the land, but from the sea: his conclusion is that, until the second half of the 19th century, land administrative categories such as vilayet, region, nation etc. were much less signi cant than the viable sea connections.14 ese maritime settlements seemed to be much more involved in the global sea trade network than subordinated to their hinterland, where connections of all kinds were rather scarce. In these cases, contrary to the usual situation where a port city is fed and defended by its adjacent territory, the sea didn’t seem to be regarded as the feared medium that brought unknown illnesses and enemies, but rather as the agent that really infused life and novelty into these places. During the Ottoman domination, until the end of the 18th century, the Black Sea was also known as the “Turkish lake,” which softened its stormy fame and eliminated the possibilities of pirate attacks (as was the case in the Mediterranean Sea). Such a “lake,” controlled by a powerful empire, might have been a reassuring fact for the ports left at the mercy of history, without independent governance and without a clear and certain future. e sea became less a frontier and a limit, and more a distinct space de ned by various ows of goods and ideas, the main support of human interaction and commercial activities. It became the medium that directly connected people and communities and brought in cultural inuences that shaped the social life of the cities and sometimes their built fabric as well. At this point the ability of adaptation and assimilation of border communities determined distinct cultural con gurations.
10 Yves Luginbühl, “La découverte du paysage littoral ou la transition vers l’exotisme” [The Discovery of the Seascape or the Transition towards the Exotic], in Le paysage littoral.Cahiers paysages et espaces urbains, 3 (Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 1995), 10-12. 11 Paolo Sorcinelli, Storia sociale dell’acqua. Riti e culture [Social History of the Water. Rites and Cultures] (Milan: Mondadori, 1998), 21. 12 Luginbühl, “La découverte du paysage littoral,” 9-11. 13 Corbin, L’invenzione del mare, 133. 14 King, Marea Neagră, 23. 86 studies in History & Theory of Architecture
During the 19th century, travellers used the port of Constanța not as a destination in itself, but rather as a point of departure or arrival from the Central European inland to Odessa, Trebizond or Constantinople and vice versa. When the Russian empire eet started to mark its presence into the Black Sea and the conict with the Ottoman Empire sharpened, the sea became a possible gateway for enemies. e city collapsed and resurrected many times, so the impressions of visitors testi ed about a city of ruins, poverty and wild inhabitants, but also about Roman antiquities scattered all around luxuriant local vegetation.15 e 1856 Treaty of Paris laid the foundations of an auspicious political context for the Black Sea region: neutrality of its territory, free circulation on the Danube under the surveillance of the Danube European Committee, annexation of southern Bessarabia to Romania and an increased degree of independence for the Romanian principalities. In these circumstances, the British Empire was the rst to understand the commercial importance of the port of Constanța.16 In 1857, once the sultan leased the construction of the port and the railway between Cernavodă and Constanța to an English company, the city started to receive more visitors and a relative ourishing period began. Finally, the uni cation of Dobrudja with Romania in 1878, the technological progress and the state’s determination for modernizing this forgotten part of Romania improved the connection to the land: Constanța became the main hub for travellers between West and East. Hence for most of the 19th century, the sea and the port directly fed all channels of urban life. Constanța was seen as a “city of a cosmopolitan port, luxurious, eager for feasts.”17
e lure of the Black Sea. e seashore and its hinterland in the collective imaginary of the epoch
A 19th century mental map of the image of Constanța would surely put the port area at its very centre, both as a distinctive physical feature and as a daily source of novelty and vitality. e promontory of the Peninsula, with its protected natural gulf, was the most important geographical accent on the monotonous coastline. erefore, it was the most signi cant place in this part of the sea. Everything else seemed ephemeral: the defensive walls uctuated between destruction and reconstruction; the few dusty roads were only slightly marked and seemed to lead nowhere; in the at hostile desert of Dobrudja the very few inner settlements were either insigni cant or temporary. In spite of its terrible winter climate and political instability, the Peninsula – which, for a long time, coincided with the entire extent of the city – remained the reference point that survived in the collective imaginary of the region ever since the city’s founding by Greek colonists. e fame of the wilderness and inhospitality of the Black Sea shore and the Dobrudja region was initiated by Ovid, who called it a land of exile. During the historical periods that followed until the beginning of the 20th century, both its visitors and its inhabitants testi ed to these early negative perceptions, and even deepened them.18 At the beginning of the modern period, the greatest part of Dobrudja was a geographic periphery, a deserted and uninhabited steppe, itself an almost insurmountable frontier. e coastline was doubled by large swamps populated by swarms of mosquitoes that were seen as vehicles of frightening diseases. e small population was heterogeneous and partly nomad, and the region was often a shelter for thieves and fugitives.
15 For the Western travelers, the magnetism of the intangible and mysterious Orient was also transferred onto its closer gate, the Balkans; this imaginary is extensively analyzed by Maria Todorova in Imagining the Balkans (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). 16 Details in Dumitru Iordănescu and Constantin Georgescu, Construcţii pentru transporturi în România. Monografie [Constructions for Transportation in Romania. Monography] (Bucharest: CCCF), 1986), vol. I, 47-51 and 54-57; vol. II, 637-640. 17 Kiriak Napadarjan, “Ascultați’l pe Ovidiu!” [Listen to Ovid!], Furnica, 156, 1907, 10 apud Păuleanu, Doina, Constanţa 1878-1928. Spectacolul modernităţii târzii [Constanța 1878 – 1928. The Spectacle of Late Modernity] (Constanţa: Arcade, 2005), vol. I, 39-40. 18 Călători străini despre Țările Române în secolul al XIX-lea [Foreign Travellers in Romanian Principalities in the XIX Century], new series, vol. II (Bucharest, 2005), 372-397. Marginalia. Architectures of Uncertain Margins 87
Because of the numerous Russian – Turkish wars, the region had also lost its organic connections with the other harbours on the Black Sea or on the Mediterranean. Foreign travellers, such as Héctor de Béarn and Camille Allard, provided the rst images of Constanța from the early modern epoch.19 As a result of the tumultuous recent history, during the rst half of the 19th century the port city o ered a stark and bare landscape of ruins, nonetheless exotic and magni cent with the minaret of the mosque pro led against the endless blue. In these romantic engravings, from the sea the image of the city seemed ethereal, a white citadel oating on water. John Wylie proposes the notion of landscape as “both something seen and a particular way of seeing the world – both the land and the gaze upon it.”20 e cultural geographer argues that the use of this European landscape form and aesthetics for the representation of an unknown territory should be understood in the context of exploration, colonialism and imperialism. e visual structure of conventional landscape representation had the e ect of subduing strangeness and rendered non-European scenes in a distinctively European manner: “this familiarisation can be understood as a sort of taming.”21 e image of the unknown was thus o ered to Western European public, extending its collective imaginary upon it. e condition of the city, surrounded by the sea on three sides, ampli ed the strong north-east wind which made cold seasons in Constanța almost unbearable; moreover, the absence of the trees emphasized this phenomenon. Towards the end of the 19th century, with the emergence of tourism, the economic operators in the city tried to alleviate this bad impression, discouraging their business. is special position of the city on the promontory attracted various descriptions ranging from objective to emotional ones: “almost isolated in the middle of the sea;”22 “the city’s position is one of the most pleasant, washed by the sea in the Black Sea gulf and looking towards one of the most splendid panoramas;”23 “romantic … around the sea is poetry;”24 “Streets open to the right, and sometimes they deliver in blue. When you get to their end, you stop full of gratitude in front of a great beauty.”25 As Charles King mentions, the Crimean War “… literally brought the Black Sea in the Western salons. […] e closeness was then facilitated by the many documentaries and press correspondence.”26 After a long period during which the Westerners had seen the Balkans as a rather inhospitable and primitive world,27 the Black Sea and its surroundings acquired the reputation of an exotic place that was reachable in comfortable conditions. Moreover, its attractive places were described in touristic guides and were connected by the rail system. By publishing a wide variety of writings on the Black Sea, foreign travellers set the tone for Romanian authors as well. At the time, the seashore was still seen as the romantic ideal of the savage periphery uncontaminated by modern vices, a borderland which was now safely available for the great public.
19 Some of the most important travellers who published texts or drawings on Constanța were: Héctor de Béarn (1828), Helmut von Moltke (1828), James Baillie Fraser (1937), Hans Cristian Andersen (1841), Alexis de Vallon (1843), Karl Koch (1843-1844), Hommaire de Hell (1846), Ion Ionescu de la Brad (1850), Robert Bois (1855), Camille Allard (1855), N. Sadoveanu (1856), Andrei Papadopoulos-Vretos (1859) etc.; Mariana Bălăbănescu, Gabriel Custurea, “Catalogul călătorilor din secolul al XIX-lea în Dobrogea – o contribuție la bibliografia Dobrogei” [19th Century Travelers in Dobrogea – a Contribution to the Bibliography of Dobrogea] Analele Dobrogei V-2 (1999), 125-132. 20 John Wylie, Landscape (London and New York: Routledge, 2007), 55. 21 Wylie, Landscape, 131. 22 Camille Allard, Mission medicale dans la Tartarie – Dobroutscha [Medical Mission in Tartaria – Dobrudja] (Paris, 1857) apud Păuleanu, Constanţa 1878-1928, 11. 23 V. Grozescu, “Unspredece luni în Orient” [Eleven Months into the Orient], Familia XXIII (1887), 4 apud Păuleanu, Constanţa 1878-1928, 91. 24 Petru Vulcan, “De la Constanța” [From Constanța], Familia XXXIV, 7 (1898), 82 apud Păuleanu, Constanţa 1878-1928, 152. 25 Nicolae Iorga, Drumuri şi oraşe din România [Roads and Towns from Romania] (Bucharest: Minerva, 1904), 386. 26 King, Marea Neagră, 296. 27 See Maria Todorova, “Patterns of Perception until 1900,” in Imagining the Balkans, 89-115. 88 studies in History & Theory of Architecture
Fig. 1. (above and opposite) Views of Kustenge, Héctor de Béarn, 1828
Some important messengers of the ancient and mysterious image of Dobrudja were the collectors of antiquities and curiosities. e description of Hommaire de Hell was eloquent: “Custendje equally presents itself by the importance of its own history, attested by the innumerable antique vestiges, both rich and diverse, which make this settlement a genuine museum in open air.”28 Among the di erent studies that saw the light of print, those focusing on the history of the region were especially signi cant in raising awareness of the greater Romanian audience over the importance of this territory for the national identity that was building up during this period. e railway infrastructure became the modernizing agent of the coastal area and the determining factor for all port activities. e urban and architectural evolution of the Romanian coast, as well as its balneary and climateric development depended directly on the accessibility o ered by the road and rail infrastructure. e number of visitors gradually increased in direct relation with the continuity of the rail system, culminating with the Orient-Express line. is considerably enlarged the collective imaginary by fostering a faster circulation of images – with their accompanying stories and associated meanings. Towards the end of the 19th century, and especially after 1878, the Black Sea also became an object of intense study for young scientists educated in the Western world.29 For example, around 1900 a group of Romanian marine ocers produced the rst precise and complex hydrographical map of the Romanian territorial waters,30 after which the coast seemed controllable in navigational terms. Along with gathering vital and accurate information about this unknown piece of new Romanian land, most of these studies were also used for the construction of the
28 Xavier Hommaire de Hell, Voyage en Turquie et en Perse. Executé par ordre du gouvernement francais pendant les années 1846, 1847 et 1848 [Journey in Turkey and Persia] (Paris: Bertrand, 1854), 175. 29 King, Marea Neagră, 327. 30 ”Map of the Black Sea, the Romanian Coast” (Cătuneanu Map), executed between 1898-1899 and printed in 1900 in Paris. Marginalia. Architectures of Uncertain Margins 89
national identity: famous intellectuals as agronomist Ion Ionescu de la Brad,31 natural historian Grigore Antipa32 or historian Nicolae Iorga did include the nationalist discourse into their published works. Entering Constanța in 1904, Iorga asked himself: “Is it going to be a Turkish little borough, next to which our expensive port is going be inappropriate, or is it going to be the expression of Oriental extravaganza that high society journalists write about in newspapers for re ned people who spend two months a year here for their health and leisure? [...] In order to welcome these guests properly, Romania has given this seaport everything it needs so that it should provide security and defence. [...] e millions spent here have prepared a future, and from this cement, from this granite, will grow fruits like from the most fertile plains. And the city understands that it should be worthy of this port, conquered by hard work and with great sacri ces from the sea. is triumphant Constanța, which will no longer remind us of the humble Muslim Chiustenge, will be a true Romanian city.”33 Medical publications also had an important contribution to the popularization of the sea in the collective imaginary. e rst place on the Romanian coastline that drew the attention of the national public was Techirghiol, through the presentation of the therapeutic e ects at the Hygiene Congress in Paris in 1889. e existence of Techirghiol lake determined the founding of Eforie Nord and Sud balneary resorts, both enjoying a double waterfront to the lake and to the sea: the rst hotel was built in 1891 and the rst sanatorium in 1893.34 In Romania, the science of balneology progressed especially at the beginning of the 20th century, when expert investigations
31 Adrian Rădulescu, Ion Bitoleanu, Istoria românilor dintre Dunăre și Mare [The History of Romanians between the Danube and the Sea] (Bucharest: Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică, 1979), 237. 32 The nationalist discourse joins the scientific research in Grigore Antipa, Marea Neagră [The Black Sea] (Bucharest: Academia Română, 1941). 33 Iorga, Drumuri şi oraşe din România, 260, 264-265. 34 Ruxandra Nemţeanu, “S.O.S. - arhitectura de vilegiatură din oraşul Eforie, judeţul Constanţa” [S.O.S. – Holidays Architecture in the Town of Eforie, Constanţa County], Arhitectura 12 (2012), 97-107. 90 studies in History & Theory of Architecture
were published, explaining curative properties and presenting balneary and climatic resorts.35 As Constanța was gaining more fame as a balneary destination, a lot of publications, from booklets to complex medical studies, emerged. ey all acted as an advertising medium for the seacoast, both explaining the medical advantages of the sun and sea bathing, and sometimes acquiring the status of tourist guides, with pictures and stories about places and various beach habits.36 e metamorphosis of the character of the place was depicted in 1906 by one of the doctor-authors that denounced the diversion of the medical purpose of the baths towards a social one: “[T]odayand everywhere hygiene and therapeutics tend to be substituted by entertainment, and almost all maritime resorts compete in parties […][I]n most cases friendships and social relations are reason enough to determine one to go to the seaside […][O]n the other hand, the luxury, the fashion clothing and the feasts that maritime resorts o er – all deform the true character of the sea baths, which should be in the rst place essentially radical […], the place and climate of sunbathing; water or beach; air or the marine atmosphere and the sea breezes.”37 Another impulse for the prominence of the sea lure and the consolidation of the seaside’s leisure identity was the model constantly o ered by the royal family. eir residences by the sea and their frequent visits to Constanța (starting from 1905 to the new resort of Mamaia) were symbolic references rst for the Romanian elite, and then for the great public. Upon arrival, the rst-time tourist was fascinated by the astounding landscape. At the time, a lot of people would come to Constanța just to look at the sea for the rst time in their life, and the view in itself was worth the whole expensive and tiresome journey: “We don’t know where to look rst: to the city or to the sea? ...All our attention gets absorbed by the sea. e more we look at it, the more it attracts us, the more it conquers us deeper. Looking at the sea for the rst time, the impression is overwhelming.”38 One of the rst guidebooks of the city began its romantic plea by stating that it was the sea that attracted people to Constanța: “People come to Constanța for the sake of the sea... e widened boulevard bends along the sea, like an open balcony, where more and more rows of free and happy people come, talking about everything, being overwhelmed by the majesty of the sea.”39 e city transferred the solar and fashionable fascination it exerted onto its new streets, hotels, terraces, co ee shops, restaurants and bath facilities, all placed near the sea.40 e cosmopolitan charm that most travellers who had visited Constanța would label Oriental, Balkan, or Mediterranean, was clearly conveyed through the images of the rst years of the 20th century. us the sea ocially entered Romanian imaginary only towards the end of the 19th century, rst as a curative and healthy environment, and afterwards as an ideal place for seeking relaxation and pleasure. Due to its isolation and lack of infrastructure, its leisure vocation evolved slowly. It was only after World War I that the coast would come into fashion, rapidly including the coastline into a larger Romanian landscape appreciated and contemplated by the elites. Progressively, the social practice of spending the holidays in the mountains and at the seaside became current practice for Romanian middle-class families.
35 Al. Șaabner-Tuduri, Apele minerale şi staţiunile climaterice din România [Mineral Waters and Climateric Resorts in Romania] (Bucharest: Tipografia Curții Regale, 1900 and 1906 editions); Gheorghe Băiulescu, Hidroterapia medicală [Medical Hydrotherapy] (Bucharest, 1904). 36 In the first decade of the XXth century there were numerous doctors that published, as Sadoveanu 1906, Mendonidi 1906, Adam 1908, Cernat 1909 etc., see Păuleanu, Constanţa 1878-1928, 146-162. 37 I. Mendonidi, Băile de mare de la Constanța-Mamaia [Sea Baths from Constanța - Mamaia] (Bucharest: Speranța, 1906). 38 “La Constanța” [To Constanța], Familia XXXIV, 43 (1898), 507 apud Păuleanu, Constanţa 1878-1928, 92. 39 Ioan Adam, Constanţa pitorească cu împrejurimile ei. Călăuză descriptivă cu ilustraţii [Picturesque Constanța with its Surroundings. Descriptive Guide with Illustrations] (Bucharest: Minerva, 1908), 35, 60. 40 Doina Păuleanu, Constanţa. Aventura unui proiect european [Constanţa. The Adventure of a European Project] (Constanţa: Ex Ponto, 2003), 80-81. Marginalia. Architectures of Uncertain Margins 91
e sea and its port in political discourses on modernization
e main philosophical, cultural and political ideas that violently shook Europe during the 19th century reached Dobrudja’s coast after almost a century, at a time when in the Western world these ideas were already consolidated in all public agendas. Given the economic and commercial importance of the area, the national state required the urgent modernization of the untamed territory between the Danube and the Black Sea.41 For this ambitious purpose, the latest technologies available were put to work in order to connect this region with the rest of the country. All these endeavours were mostly concentrated in Constanța, as the town provided the only natural port on the coast and also because it was the nearest city to the Danube (60km). At this point, it should be mentioned that the Romanian government was already convinced of the geopolitical importance of a maritime port, as Constanța was not the rst Romanian seaport to be designed. Before 1878 engineer Charles Hartley envisaged the construction from scratch of ‘Carol I’ Port on the seaside of Ismail County.42 e e orts culminated with an 1868 bill that suggestively presented the reasons for which the sea connection was so important: “... this necessity is all the greater as our situation increasingly feels the tendency to create large means of development and to enter into a larger sphere of commercial activity. With the return of the southern part of Bessarabia granted by the Paris Treaty, Romania took possession of a signi cant extent of Black Sea shore, insomuch that every Romanian would feel happy to be able to have direct access to the sea, the universal route of all national trade.”43 After the tense moment of the Berlin Congress of 1878 and after the severe political conicts in the Romanian government regarding the annexation of Dobrudja were resolved, developing the connection with the Black Sea and the port of Constanța was considered a strategic geopolitical and economic goal for the new Romanian state.44 It was typical for new nation states to diplomatically negotiate for the inclusion of segments of seashore into their territory. Alongside the constant and rm support of King Carol I, politician Ion C. Brătianu advocated the most convincing plea for Dobrudja: “A territory between the sea and the biggest river in Europe, and you want to abandon it?”45 At the same time, Mihail Kogălniceanu stated: “We can’t have another sea…do we need the sea only to navigate on it and to breathe its air? No, we need it to give us life.”46 eir visionary speeches pushed for political consensus and further allocation of a greater budget for Dobrudja’s modernization: the sea was to become an integrating part of the construction project of the modern state. e cultural gures of the Romanian society started to discover, highlight or even invent the maritime vocation of Romanians: poets, writers, artists, doctors, scholars began to research archives and libraries and publish works about Dobrudja and the Black Sea. e beginning of the 20th century put powerful political pressure on the coast and, in particular, on Constanța:
41 Rădulescu, Bitoleanu, Istoria românilor, 285. 42 Details in Toader Popescu, Proiectul feroviar românesc (1842-1916) [The Romanian Railway Project (1842-1916)] (Bucharest: Simetria, 2014), 49-51. 43 Monitorul Oficial 61 (14/26 March 1868), cited in Iordănescu and Georgescu, Construcţii pentru transporturi în România, vol. II, 107. 44 Valentin Ciorbea, Portul Constanța 1896 – 1996 [The Constanța Port 1896 – 1996] (Constanța: Editura Fundației Andrei Șaguna, 1996), 52-55. 45 Stoica Lascu, “Specificul vieții dobrogene după 1878 în viziunea oamenilor de stat și începuturile activității partidelor politice la Constanța” [The Specificity of Dobrudja Life after 1878 in the Vision of Politicians and the Incipient Political Activities in Constanța], in Valori ale civilizației românești în Dobrogea [Values of Romanian Civilisation in Dobrudja] (Constanța: 1993), 291. 46 Mihail Kogălniceanu, “Discurs la proiectul de lege privind răscumpărarea de către statul român a căii ferate Constanța – Cernavodă, 1882” [Speech for the Bill for the Rebuying by the Romanian State of the Constanța – Cernavodă Railway, 1882], Opere, vol. V, 1878 – 1891, II (Bucharest: Ed. Academiei, 1986), 333. 92 studies in History & Theory of Architecture
“In all this development of the coast we have only one port, Constanța, towards which all the e orts of our State are directed.”47 One can argue that at the time the eyes of the Romanian society were focused on this maritime city in which large sums of money had been invested and which had to function impeccably, facilitating high scale trade operations and, at the same time, corresponding to the level of representation to which the young modern state aspired.
Tourism and the public assimilation of the waterfront
Isolation from inland centers was for a long time a part of Constanța’s identity: the main communication channel was the sea. Until the railway connection between Bucharest and Constanța had been completed in 1896, travelling to the seashore was a risky adventure. Even if the railway between Cernavodă and Constanța was functional in 1860, the Danube navigation or even its crossing were problematic and during wintertime there was no connection whatsoever.48 e regular route for visitors supposed a journey by train from Bucharest to Giurgiu, then by boat until Cernavodă and then again by railway to Constanța. is lack of accessibility somehow emphasized the exotic and picturesque character of the place and paved the way for the reinforcement of its balneary identity in the rst phase, before the development of Constanta’s commercial harbour. e development of tourism actually corresponded to the discovery of the seashore by the inhabitants themselves.49 is city that turned its back to the sea (with the obvious exception of the harbour area) gradually started to praise the space of the shore and the beach precisely because they appealed to visitors. e educated Romanians and foreigners that moved to Constanța after 1878 also had a striking contribution to this adjustment of perception. eir ideas about the beauty of the sea, about its sublime character, its aesthetic qualities, about the healthy marine air, about the curative properties of sea water, about the health bene ts stemming from sunbathing or about the novel trends of tourism and leisure in ltrated – all these slowly sieved into the local perception and gradually changed the collective attitude towards the sea.50 is entire process was accelerated by the construction of the transportation system and the railway station temporarily replaced the port as a main gate for new ideas and mentalities. 1898 may be considered the moment when practicing tourism on the Romanian Black Sea shore was ocially seen as healthy and entertaining. is moment can be explained mostly by the completion of the transportation network that facilitated the di erent ows coming from inland. From this year on, the city hall was to publish constantly advertising materials regarding the city’s facilities for the tourists. Towards 1915, the balneary fame of Constanța and its new extension Mamaia was at its peak. A newspaper from August 1915 notes that the city was packed and there was no more room in the city.51 By this time, the seashore was assimilated by the great public as the main place of modernity and of fashionable social practices.52 Constanța’s waterfront and a great part of its urban fabric were con gured according to balneary activities. Consequently, for almost half a century, during the summer season the city functioned as a resort, until the interwar period when other more competitive maritime resorts on the Romanian coastline outperformed it.
47 M.D. Ionescu, Dobrogia în pragul veacului al XX-lea [Dobruja at the Beginning of the XX Century] (Bucharest: Socecu, 1904), 660. 48 Ion Ionescu, Povestiri tehnice [Technical Stories] (Bucharest: Cadmos, 2007), 179. 49 King, Marea Neagră, 300. 50 On that effect, it is also necessary to stress that this change of perspective emerged on a fertile ground, as sea bathing was occasionally practiced during the Ottoman period too; Păuleanu, Constanţa 1878-1928, 180. 51 Gazeta ilustrată IV, 34 (1915), 9. 52 Carmen Popescu, Spaţiul modernităţii româneşti, 1906-1947 [The Space of Romanian Modernity, 1906- 1947] (Bucharest: Arhitext Design, 2011), 130. Marginalia. Architectures of Uncertain Margins 93
Fig. 2. Vincke Plan of Constanța, 1840
e infrastructure of the sea margin
Special infrastructural elements were built in a strait connection with the idea of margin, emphasizing it and giving it an enhanced physical identity. e margin as the defence against the enemies coming from the sea was initially embodied in the high forti cation walls and donjons and in the clever use of the natural con guration chosen for the settlement: the peninsula with its steep cli s and the naturally protected bay. Defence against potential enemies from the land was dealt with through a forti cation system consisting of walls with loopholes and surrendered by water moats, a protected gate with a pont-levis entrance and the ancient vallum in the proximity of the city. Although the sea didn’t seem such an awful presence for the inhabitants, its shore was neither praised, nor frequented until the end of the 19th century. After the demolition of the forti cations, the shores on the three sides of the Peninsula were ignored: the northern one because of the height and inaccessibility, combined with the frequent landslides, the southern one because, until 1879, it was the garbage dump site of the city and the south-eastern one because of the port, which allowed it to be perceived as a strictly functional area, unworthy of public aesthetic consideration. e rst contact between the city and its shores took place on the southern side which had a reduced height and seemed more controllable: this part of the waterfront was cleaned and regularized until it became an actual public place that was soon to correspond to the typology of the classical maritime promenade. Following the development of the port, but also a change in mentality, the port started to be regarded as a subject of contemplation, a living presence that stirred the senses: gazing to this exotic place and walking to the distant lighthouse became to-do things of urban life. e sea erosion of the cli was a permanent geographical characteristic of this coast. e sea had always endangered whatever man had tried to build on its shores, regardless of the great material and human costs. Each winter, marine currents and harsh weather conditions destroyed the arti cial structures on the coast, so they had to be built anew at the beginning of the next summer season. ese geomorphologic conditions determined frequent landfalls to the north of the Peninsula. Every winter the town hall received petitions from citizens that were terri ed that their houses would be engulfed by the sea. e erosion problem was tackled in 1894 by a commission that inspected the current state of the north-eastern cli of the Peninsula. Its account provided useful technical observations and protection procedures53 that were to be the rst ones in a series of memoirs that highlighted the risk of landslide in the very heart of the city. e 1897 plan of Constanța was used in 1904 by engineer Anghel Saligny to suggest technical solutions for the eroding cli , along with the creation of an urban beach towards the north of the Peninsula.
53 National Archives of Constanța County, Constanţa City Hall collection, file no. 6/1894, 10-11. 94 studies in History & Theory of Architecture
In time, the waterfront was to forsake its savage pro le and was to be reinforced through an entire set of infrastructural works. is process of de ning the sea limit was gradual. First, the seashore was explored through temporary devices; their level of impermanence and their position showed the degree of collective assimilation of the wild waterfront. e seafront promenade, the belvedere platforms, the gazebo and the casino on the edge of the cli , were all realized in this stage. All were further away from the water and allowed for the aesthetic contemplation of the marine panorama, from the height of the Peninsula. en, advancing towards the water, came complicated wooden alleyways, stairs and bath facilities extending right on the sea surface, and allowing not only sight, but also other senses, to enjoy the marine climate. e seaside of the rst balneary facilities was characterized by impermanence, improvisation, precariousness and spontaneity. e constructions dedicated to the sun and sea bathing, as well as those dedicated to rest, were mostly delicate wooden works, designed after well-known European models. e bathing establishments, the casino or the jetty were representative of the epoch’s waterfront typology, symbolizing, by their own fragility, the provisionality of the relation between man and sea. ey also constituted points of reference in the creation of the visual identity of the new harbour city and resort at the beginning of the 20th century. Progressively, the collective perception of the sea advanced from the need to defend oneself against the unknown to a creative discovery and nally to a pleasant habit and a social fashion. e port’s northern breakwater became the favoured promenade area, the structural reinforcement of the cli provided the public spatial apparatus towards the beach, the light timbered pilotis structures on the water delivered easy and direct access into the reclaimed sea which nally seemed obedient. e urban regulation from 1890 also provided suggestions regarding the seashore: the clear delimitation of the balneary area and the rules for its con guration and functioning, as well as the conditions for the expropriation of land in order to start reinforcement works and the execution of a maritime boulevard.54 e conditions for the latter were detailed in the 1894 memoir, where eng. Vladimir Simu envisioned this major urban work: Elisabeta Boulevard was to be enlarged and extended towards the sea.55 He also imagined the planning of the coast by using a series of high terraces, with pedestrian ways, houses and gardens from where one would be allowed a panoramic view of the sea. e ideas and visions promoted in 1897 by the city’s embellishment committee,56 composed of Anghel Saligny, Grigore Cerchez and Elie Radu, were to solidly launch the city on the way to modernisation. eir report summarized the main directions for the expansion of the city. e urban regulations included aesthetic and ambient prescriptions, but also strict urban rules.57 ey also planned the “improvement of the [between the vineyards] bath establishments,” which was to be connected to the city through a large boulevard, located “along the seashore and provided with an electric tramway; between this boulevard and the sea no construction of private building will be allowed, and the precipice will turn into a garden.”58 is report brought the fresh modernising vision that included the sea in the general urban design, ocially accepting it and making it
54 National Archives of Constanța County, Constanţa City Hall collection, file 6/1890, 25-30. 55 National Archives of Constanța County, Constanţa City Hall collection, file 30/1894, 24-40. 56 The concern for the embellishment of the city came from the organic regulation epoch that would impose new urban principles for organizing the settlements. The main objective was the public space, which was aesthetically transformed through the clear delineation of the streets and the squares, the creation of urban parks, promenades, aligned plantations etc. See more details in Nicolae Lascu, “Epoca regulamentară şi urbanismul. Câteva observaţii generale” [The Organic Regulation Epoch and Urban Planning. A Few General Observations], Historia urbana II, 2 (1994). 57 Among the measures: the fixed urban limit, the alignment and dimensioning of the streets, the size of the allotments, the layout of the seaside boulevard, the connection between future urban hubs, the future relation with the hinterland and the consequent design of the circulation, the water supply and drainage system, the main public facilities, the relocation of the railway station, numerous hygienic and architectural regulations for new buildings etc. Data from the National Archives of Constanța County, Constanţa City Hall collection, file 48/1896. 58 National Archives of Constanța County, Constanţa City Hall collection, file 48/1896, 14-18. Marginalia. Architectures of Uncertain Margins 95
Fig. 3. Constanţa: the Boulevard & the gazebo, the Casino, the landing pier; the urban and Vii sea baths
Fig. 4. Project of the Casino (section), 1886; project of a timbered landing pier, 1894 96 studies in History & Theory of Architecture
Fig. 5. Constanța plans in 1878 and 1896 part of urban life. It also emphasized its presence in the image of the city through complex infrastructural works and public facilities that mirrored the typological con guration of Western maritime cities. During the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the tendency to connect the sea with the city through architecture, by means of a “continuity gure”59 (the seawall, the Boulevard, the built front, the pier, etc.) became apparent not only in the way the waterfront was developed, but also in the attitude of the professionals of the time. is generated an architectural limit which directed the opening of the city towards the landscape and organized its urban façade towards the sea, giving it a strong and representative identity. is attempt to build a precise geometrical margin might be explained by the collective desire to cancel the initial un nished and impermanent character of the coast in favour of establishing a geometric and measurable place at a human scale.
National versus local
In the assessment of these apparently two opposite phenomena one should notice a certain traditionalist refusal of modernity, an inherent resilience of the place. Its marginality only enhances this predisposition. is is further strengthened by the fact that until its annexation, Dobrudja was under Ottoman inuence and had a majority of Muslim population,60 thus remaining aloof from European values and Western public laws and rights. e area of Constanța is an example of the Balkan model of building up a new national and urban identity towards the end of the 19th century. During this period, the process of modernization, or, in this case, Westernisation was well under way in the Romanian capital and in a few other big cities. However, Dobrudja had little or no contact with the ideologies that restructured the European states during the 19th century. In spite of a mixed and dynamic social environment where many ethnic groups overlapped, in this area people shared the same cultural and political views, as a direct consequence of the long Ottoman domination and of the harsh living conditions. Moreover, the concept of the modern national state was a foreign idea that would be hardly assimilated in this distant land: it was unexpectedly imposed from the centre and –for the moment –would only assume a formal appearance. is means that once Dobrudja was united with Romania in 1878, the Ottoman / Balkan values were not suddenly rejected and, on a general scale, the existent content only received another name or another apparent form. is continuity can be noticed in some aspects of the urban fabric from the city scale to architectural or social details. One signi cant example might be the continuity of urban design for the extension of the city as seen in the main plans of Constanța starting from 1857. e rst one was an 1857 Turkish proposal dating from the Tanzimat period, during which the Empire reorganised its vast
59 Bernardo Secchi, Prima lezione de urbanistica [First Lesson of Urban Planning] (Roma–Bari: Laterza, 2000), 153. 60 Doctor Camille Allard mentioned only three Romanian families in Constanța in 1856, Camille Allard, Mission medicale dans la Tartarie – Dobroutscha (Paris, 1857). Marginalia. Architectures of Uncertain Margins 97
Fig. 6. Plan for the expansion of Constanța, eng. J.T. Barkley, 1857-1859 Fig. 7. Plan for the expansion of Constanța, eng. Gheorghe Duca, addenda eng. Anghel Saligny, 1904 98 studies in History & Theory of Architecture
Fig. 8. Great Mosque of Constanta Fig. 9. Sea bathing facilities for men and for women, Constanța, 1882 territories and tried to catch up with the technological progress of Western Europe.61 is reform period was also dedicated to the decreasing of local nationalist tendencies through a series of reforms and the encouragement of Ottoman style and values. e urban model for the extension was the orthogonal grid, slightly adapted to site conditions, as can be seen in the plans of extension of many medium and large cities throughout the Empire. e geostrategic importance of Constanța in the north western part of the Black Sea determined the Empire to invest in its development from an early stage. Drafted in 1859 in Turkish, the plan clearly indicated the land that the Ottoman Empire was o ering to ” e Danube and Black Sea Railway and Küstendge Harbour Company” for the works indicated in the contract of concession; the plan was signed by engineer J.T. Barkley and was the rst modern proposal of systematization of the town, even beyond the granted territory.62 An almost identical urban design is noticeable on the plan drawn under prefect Remus Opreanu in 1879, followed by similar ones in the next years. In 1897 the mayor’s oce commissioned engineer Gheorghe Duca to prepare a new city plan that included the modernising directions mentioned in the 1897 report by the city’s embellishment committee.63 All culminated at the beginning of the 20th century in the action initiated by mayor Ion Bănescu to plan and outline a Romanian neighbourhood as an extension of the historic city.64 At the time Constanța had just been connected to Romania through elaborate infrastructure works such as Saligny’s bridge over the Danube (1895) and had been the subject of countless pages of political discourses on the national importance of the sea and its port city for the Romanian nation. All these national movements were nurturing the need for some symbolic changes. On the other side, the historical background
61 The Tanzimat period starts in 1839 and aims at building a modern administration according to the Occidental conception. See details in Pierre Pinon, “L’empire ottoman à la fin du XIXe siècle: modernité et tradition en architecture et en urbanisme” [The Ottoman Empire at the End of the XIXth Century: Modernity and Tradition in Architecture and Urban Planning], in Genius Loci, edited by Carmen Popescu and Ioana Teodorescu (Bucharest: Simetria, 2002), 128-132. 62 Stoyanka Kenderova, Radu Stefan Vergatti, “Deux plans de la ville de Constanta datant de 1859” [Two Plans of the Town of Constanța dating from 1859]. Revue Roumaine d’histoire L 3-4 (2012), 179-191. 63 National Archives of Constanța County, Constanţa City Hall collection, file 48/1896, 14-18. 64 Gheorghe Brătescu, ”Constanța. Considerații generale pentru sistematizarea orașului” [Constanța. General Considerations for the Systematisation of the City], Analele Dobrogei X (1929), 241-252. Marginalia. Architectures of Uncertain Margins 99 of Constanța had little or no connection to the historical past of Romania, as it had with the Ottoman world. In these terms, the obvious similarity of the urban principles applied in these development plans appeared contradictory to the symbolic purposes of these opposed processes: reinforcing the Ottoman aliation versus assimilating the Romanian national identity. Here, the borderland condition continued to persist: the same content appeared with di erent names. is continuity is clearly explained by Pierre Pinon.65 One should consider that all urban policies introduced in the Ottoman Empire during the second half of the 19th century were inspired from contemporary European urban culture: the grid plan for the urban extensions, the overall dimensions of public spaces in the new allotments or the main streets alignments. From this point of view, the 1857-1859 Ottoman project for the extension of Constanța appeared to be a pioneer work in terms of modern urban planning within the Empire.66 erefore, to that e ect, this marginal territory was subject to the same process of urban modernization, albeit coming from two opposite promoters –the West and the East, Constanța and other marginal territories being in fact the rst results of this urban experimentation of Western models. Another example of this kind of continuity and mixture at the architectural level might be the Great Mosque of Constanța (named ‘Carol I’ or ‘ e Royal Mosque’) in the main square of the old town. Finished in 1913, its distinctive volume and particularly the vertical pro le of the minaret changed the old Peninsula’s silhouette and enhanced the Oriental avour of the image of the city.67 Architect Victor Ştefănescu creatively combined Neo-Romanian and Moorish architectural elements, while using a reinforced concrete structure – the state of the art European technology of the time.68 Built under the patronage of King Carol I, who was himself the main architect of the enlarged Romanian state and of its new national aura, this building with Oriental appearance became a great factor of attraction and of reinforcement of the local identity. In the attempt to assess the balance between national/Western values versus local/Balkan ones, one should also consider the social inertia of the ethnic coloured mosaic of the native-born population. In an article published in 1878 in Timpul newspaper, Mihai Eminescu had named Dobrudja “[...] a miniature Orient, with all its mixture of people.” Because control was indirect under Ottoman rule and Constanța remained remote from the center of political power, a rather self-governing autonomous community emerged. is also explains why starting from 1878, when ocials and regulations were sent from Bucharest,69 they were rst treated reluctantly. Some people were even outraged, as Petre Grigorescu testi es in 1901: “Today the new clerks are the tyrants of the region, and Constanța became a simple suburb of Bucharest, since the bridge over the Danube was built.”70 e same cultural inertia can be observed in some delicious social details as, for example, the way public bath facilities were organized at the beginning. Although in Western countries which provided this leisure model both genders used the beach without discrimination, the municipality of Constanța had persisted in completely separating women from men while bathing in the sea, providing even an inner covered pool that o ered the possibility of bathing safely, far away from the sight of outsiders. At the beginning of the 20th century, Oriental morality and habits still lingered: “It feels so good at Constanța! e Turkish pashas have disappeared, but their way of life had been adopted by the vacationers: sea baths, food, irt.”71 It was easier to change the appearance than the mentality.72
65 Pinon, “L’empire ottoman à la fin du XIXe siècle,” 128. 66 “This phenomena starts at mid XIX century with the allotments …,” Ibid., 128. 67 Doina Păuleanu, Moscheea regală «Carol I» din Constanța [The Royal Mosque «Carol I» from Constanța] (Constanța: Ex Ponto, 2010). 68 The same kind of mixing process is described by Pierre Pinon for the construction of the public buildings in Istanbul and other towns - “For the public buildings, the orientalism wasn’t neglected,” Ibid., 129 and 131. 69 Rădulescu, Bitoleanu, Istoria românilor, 296-297. 70 Petre Grigorescu, “Odinioară și acum” [Then and Now], Constanța 361 (1901), 2. 71 Napadarjan, “Ascultați’l pe Ovidiu!,” 10. 72 Pinon, “L’empire ottoman à la fin du XIXe siècle,” 128-129. 100 studies in History & Theory of Architecture
Fig. 10. Peninsula, Constanța Nevertheless, the annexation of Dobrudja was followed by an intense process of Romanian colonization73 that had a direct negative impact on the status of Turkish and Tartar ethnic groups. 1878 was the starting point of a gradual migration process of the Muslim population that lasted until mid- 20th century.74 is gradual attenuation of the ethnic mixture also facilitated the easier implementation of Western models. ey were gradually assimilated and inserted into the urban fabric by adaptation to the existent scale. e inherent Westernization of the way of life determined taking over some well-known architectural and urban models and the reordering of the urban space accordingly. e most signi cant examples were the measures suggested by the city’s embellishment committee in 1897; their proposed typologies were building up a complex system of public spaces. eir charm leaned upon including and framing the sea and its speci c places: the maritime boulevard, the public parks and gardens, the squares, the public stairs and alleys on the cli , the beach and its bathing pavilions. e picturesque contrast between the Western looking buildings and public spaces in most of the Peninsula and the Oriental remains still persisted at the end of the 19th century, expressing the rift between rich and poor. At the same time, the beginning of the 20th century marked the ocial recognition of the Neo-Romanian style that will be used for buildings of all kinds, from public to residential, spreading from the capital and quickly extended to the periphery. Its romantic aura transformed it into the favourite architectural style for the elites’ second-homes on the seaside, often adding a local colour to it.75
e resilience of the margin
In spite of all the e orts to include in a coherent way the wild Dobrudja into the Romanian national body, the resilience of this margin was normal and noticeable until the beginning of the 20th century. In part, it even continued until the interwar period: the region had moved “from the periphery of the Ottoman Empire and to the periphery of the West,”76 and the seacoast remained peripheral in both cases. Aside from the areas enjoying railway acces, the inner territory
73 Rădulescu, Bitoleanu, Istoria românilor, 287. 74 Adriana Cupcea, “Introducere,” Turcii și tătarii din Dobrogea [Turks and Tartars from Dobruja] (Cluj- Napoca: Editura Institutului pentru Studierea Problemelor Minorităților Naționale, 2015), 7. 75 Carmen Popescu, (Dis)continuități. Fragmente de modernitate românească în prima jumătate a secolului al 20-lea [Discontinuities. Fragments of Romanian Modernity in the First Half of the 20th Century] (Bucharest: Simetria, 2010), 53. 76 Bogdan Murgescu, România și Europa. Acumularea decalajelor economice (1500 – 2010) [Romania and Europe. The Building-Up of Economic Disparities (1500 – 2010)] (Bucharest: Polirom, 2010), 107. Marginalia. Architectures of Uncertain Margins 101 remained isolated and the rest of the coast was barely accessible. e marginal character of Dobrudjan shores and its natural frontiers attracted and overlapped di erent cultural identities in search of wilderness, pleasure and exoticism: travellers, artists, tourists, intellectuals and antiquarians, as well as the political and cultural elite. All these actors added on to the cultural value of the place and enriched the complexity of its frontier identity, emphasizing its marginality. But, as Nae Ionescu said in 1926, without diminishing the contributions of the poets and the artists and cherishing its sanitary and aesthetic virtues, the sea still needed to be conquered by scientists, geographers, biologists and especially sociologists, economists and the great enterprises.77 is conquest envisioned by the great politician was to be fully accomplished only during the communist period, in an unfortunate manner. Dobrudja and the sea became resources put to use by the state, the region was culturally levelled and its exotic character as a borderland diminished. Only a few fragments remained, scattered in the newly built communist landscape. If until the end of the 19th century, Constanța was focused on the sea and on the various cultural inuences it brought, afterwards the city consistently turned its face towards the land, which gradually enclosed it into the Romanian national space and consequently attened its various cultural identities. e resistance of the margin was nally defeated and the only frontier that remained was the natural one, between land and water.
REFERENCE LIST
Adam, Ioan. Constanţa pitorească cu împrejurimile ei.Călăuză descriptivă cu ilustraţii [Picturesque Constanța with its Surroundings. Descriptive Guide with Illustrations]. Bucharest: Minerva, 1908. Băncescu, Irina. „Problematica frontului la apă. Aspecte ale evoluţiei litoralului românesc în perioada comu- nistă” [Waterfront Issues. Aspects of the Evolution of the Romanian Seaside during the Communist Period], PhD diss., “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest, 2012. Corbin, Alain. L’invenzione del mare. L’Occidente e il fascino della spiaggia 1750 – 1840 [The Invention of the Sea: The West and the Lure of the Beach]. Venice: Marsilio, 1990. Corboz, André. Ordine sparso. Saggi sull’arte, il metodo, la città e il territorio [Sparse Order. Studies on Art, Method, City and Territory], edited by P. Viganò. Milano: Urbanistica Franco Angeli, 1998. Dubbini, Renzo. Geografie dello sguardo. Visione e paesaggio in età moderna [Geography of the Gaze: Urban and Rural Vision in Early Modern Europe]. Torino: Einaudi, 1994. Forino, Alessandra. Paesaggi sull’acqua [Water Landscapes]. Florence: Alinea, 2003. Ionescu, M.D. Dobrogia în pragul veacului al XX-lea [Dobruja at the Beginning of the XX Century]. Bucharest: Socecu, 1904. Iordănescu, D. and Georgescu, C. Construcţii pentru transporturi în România. Monografie [Constructions for Transportation in Romania. Monography], vol. I, II. Bucharest : Centrala de Construcţii Căi Ferate (CCCF), 1986. Iorga, Nicolae. Drumuri şi oraşe din România [Roads and Towns from Romania]. Bucharest: Minerva, 1904. King, Charles. Marea Neagră. O istorie [The Black Sea. A History]. Timişoara: Brumar, 2005. Luginbühl, Yves „La découverte du paysage littoral ou la transition vers l’exotisme” [The Discovery of the Sea- scape or the Transition towards the Exotic]. In Le paysage littoral. Cahiers paysages et espaces urbains, no. 3, 8-14. École Régionale des Beaux-Arts de Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 1995. Păuleanu, Doina. Constanţa 1878-1928. Spectacolul modernităţii târzii [Constanța 1878 – 1928. The Spec- tacle of Late Modernity]. Constanţa: Arcade, 2005. Pinon, Pierre. “L’empire ottoman à la fin du XIXe siècle: modernité et tradition en architecture et en urba- nisme” [The Ottoman Empire at the End of the XIXth Century: Modernity and Tradition in Architecture and Urban Planning]. In Genius Loci, edited by Carmen Popescu and Ioana Teodorescu, 128-132. Bucharest: Simetria, 2002. Oprescu, George, Țările române văzute de artiști francezi (sec. XVII și XIX) [The Romanian Countries as Seen by French Artists (17th-18th Centuries)]. Bucharest: Cultura Națională, 1926. Popescu, Carmen, editor. Spaţiul modernităţii româneşti, 1906-1947 [The Space of Romanian Modernity, 1906-1947]. Bucharest: Arhitext Design, 2011. Rădulescu, Adrian, Bitoleanu, Ion. Istoria românilor dintre Dunăre și Mare [The History of Romanians between the Danube and the Sea]. Bucharest: Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică, 1979. Wylie, John. Landscape. London and New York: Routledge, 2007.
77 Păuleanu, Constanţa 1878-1928, 106. 102 studies in History & Theory of Architecture
ARCHIVAL SOURCES
National Archives of Constanța County, Constanţa City Hall collection, files no. 4/1882, 6/1886, 6/1890, 6/1894, 30/1894, 36/1894, 48/1896. National Archives of Constanța County, the Maritime Navigation Institution collection, file no. 1/1878-1933.
ILLUSTRATION CREDITS
Fig. 1. Héctor de Béarn, Quelques souvenirs d’une Campagne en Turquie, National Library, Paris, 1828, in George Oprescu, Țările române văzute de artiști francezi (sec. XVII și XIX) (Bucharest: Cultura Națion- ală, 1926), tables VI, IX. Fig. 2. Von Vincke, Plan des Thales des Karaβu-Seen und der Donau bei Boghasköi, Monatsberichte über die Verhandlungen der Gesellshaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin, 1840. Fig. 3. http://constanta-imagini-vechi.blogspot.ro/; accessed July 12, 2016. Fig. 4. National Archives of Constanța County, Constanţa City Hall collection, files no. 6/1886, 36/1894. Fig. 5. National Archives of Constanța County, the Maritime Navigation Institution collection, file no. 1/1878- 1933; Ionescu, Dobrogea în pragul veacului al XX-lea. Fig. 6. Păuleanu, Doina, Moscheea regală «Carol I»din Constanța (Constanța: Ex Ponto, 2010), 104-105. Fig. 7. Romanian Accademy Library, maps section, 1896. Fig. 9. National Archives of Constanța County , Constanţa City Hall collection, file 4/1882. Fig. 8, 10. Images are credited by the author.