The Sad Story of Those Who Buy New Apartments.
It’s your money, but you have no say in the matter.
We discussed with architect Eugen Pănescu, from the Cluj based Planwerk architectural office, on housing quality and use of public space in Romania’s most dynamic city.
About month ago, there was an advertising blitz featuring a statement of the Cluj City Hall regarding the new mandate of its mayor, Emil Boc; it became viral among Bucharest’s inhabitants from my Face Book list. The advertisement showed new pedestrian areas, new buses, refurbished schools and green areas, things which you can barely see in the Capital.
A World Bank study found that over 15% of Romanians would move to Cluj because they felt attracted by the quality of city life. Such a power of attraction is measured up in the average price per square meter for an apartment, which in the Transylvanian city is the highest in the country in the second semester of this year: 1,510 euros, which is 14.1% higher as compared to the same period in 2017, according to a report published by Analizaimobiliare.ro. Cluj is the only big city in Romania where prices went up if compared to those before the crisis.
Still, Cluj faces many housing issues. The higher housing demand caused by the IT boom has not led to an increase of quality of the apartment built at the city’s edge. Should the buyer end up with four straight walls and enjoy his comfortable home, he would still have to cope with heavy traffic when driving to pick up his children from a faraway kindergarten or when going shopping in a supermarket located in the boondocks; he would also run the risk of being isolated from his social circle. In order to ‘fit in’ the First Home Program, many are just 2-room apartments, which makes them quite unfeasible for younger families in the long run. Both poor collective housing quality and public interest for improvement are the basic theme of Timișoara 2018 Architectural Biennial to be opened on September 28 and stay open for a month.
“During all these years, housing development has been passed over to developers,” says architect Eugen Pănescu (aged 42), who has been shaping Cluj’s center so as to make it more breathable. In 2002, Eugen Pănescu became a founding partner to the Romanian-German architectural office Planwerk from Cluj. He is also a delegate of the Chamber of Architects of Romania into the Professional Association of Romanian Urban Planners and in the Technical Planning Commission of the Cluj Local Council. Eugen Pănescu is Associated Professor at the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism from Cluj at the Chair of Urban Design and is Chamber’s representative into Architects Council of Europe.
Scena9: How is it to work with local authorities?
Eugen Pănescu: We started under very unfriendly conditions almost 20 years ago with one of the most challenging administrations, i.e., that of the then mayor Gheorghe Funar. At that time, we were an informal group of students working together with young Germans and Romanians, engaged in their summer school practice on urban themes. We made it our goal to put up a strategy for Cluj, which included housing and development, in general, and we thought we had no choice but to collaborate with the then administration instead of waiting for better days. And we took our roles seriously. On the one hand, it was better than we’d expected, on the other, we had to face the administration’s sluggishness at that time. We used to talk then over subjects that were completely strange even in professional circles. Anyway, it took quite a while until things started to change. Meanwhile, we became an association and then an architectural office. The fact that after 2007 we were allowed to travel without a visa was a major leap, whose effects we sensed immediately; all the more so, because at that time we were debating the quality of public space, public transport, density, commercial use of bikes, etc. What is more, the audience could see with their own eyes several images we had been showing for years and find it was all about a normal milieu which could have a huge impact.
We’ve noticed the administrations will change because their staff changes. Willy-nilly, that change can be clearly seen, at least in the few towns where we continued to have projects. We caught up with a different generation now occupying not only high positions bearing important responsibilities, but also administrative positions. Their quality, number and commitment have visibly increased.
Likewise, the perspective has been completely changed: the quality of urban development lies with the public administration, and to admit that you are accountable for it means a lot; to carry it out is also another huge leap.
Do you think this change for the better is strong enough?
It’s pretty difficult for such things to swing back. It’s like a cog wheel that sometimes runs slowly, then it begins to run faster, but it never swings back. What is more, this change does not occur only by changing the head, the mayor, but also by hiring new people. People take on their shoulders their own projects feeling they are accountable for them. To carry out a project in your own organization is like attending a tough school that taught you many lessons; so, there is no turning back. Subsequently, you want to make things run smoothly.
The Romanian legal framework is complete, hierarchically controlled, and any administration is free to take on that role seriously. There is, however, something cities don’t do now: they never check on the development quality. The latter has been passed over to developers. There are so few exceptions that – which is unfair to the latter – they don’t even deserve to be mentioned. Countrywide, it is like a hot drop on a burning stone.
What steps are to be taken for Cluj’s center?
There is an ongoing public debate, which has become a very good habit in Cluj. We’re debating some proposals meant to change some streets in the downtown; it’s not only about pedestrianization, but also about refurbishments, tree planting, a.s.o. In Cluj there is much openness and transparency prior to decision making.
If I were to set up the hierarchy of the major changes taking place in Cluj recently – certainly, we may speak about its demographic changes, investments, projects, competitions, infrastructure – on the list top I would place the manner in which decisions regarding large-scale public projects became more transparent. The CCLC (Cluj City Local Council) has been watchful enough and made procedure innovations by following some good advice.
There is also another very good aspect: the public authorities – from mayor down – are present in public. They are not in the least those mysterious persons you can see only at festivals, on tele or God knows where, or those whose messages you can read on Facebook. What is more, they don’t avoid talking with people, which leads not only to valuable decisions, but also to a higher level of optimism or, at least, to a lower degree of pessimism. And in my opinion that is a big problem with our cities, particularly in Bucharest, where you are ready to face a grosser blunder, while you gave up on expecting good things to happen. And when good things do happen, you distort their effect by spotting also the hitches. At Cluj, we’ve climbed past the hilltop and now we find ourselves in a good area, filled with general optimism. There are still mistakes; projects are being corrected or you wish for something you haven’t done yet; however, the level of expectation and optimism is high.
Now, you asked about the downtown. Rules in urbanism have been also changed and are adjusted to the current condition of the downtown. For instance, investments are approved without having to provide the fixed amount of parking places. The city changes by the book – and not only its center – to the benefit of pedestrians, thus enhancing public transport. The public transport lane has been defined, which will be also done on the east-west axis, between the large neighborhoods, on the most important transit zone. In parallel, parking lots are either cut or taxed incrementally, which I understand they’ve already done in Bucharest. I don’t know how it works, though.
Piața Unirii [Union Square] from Cluj before and after its fitting-out. Source: Planwerk
Piața Unirii [Union Square] from Cluj before and after its fitting-out. Source: Planwerk
How do you cope with southern and eastern cities? Architecturally, they are very different, and so are their politicians.
We had the chance to work at the other end of the country, on the seashore. We’ve drawn up the master plan for Limanu commune, which includes the famous 2 Mai and Vama Veche villages. At that time, we had a tough time not only with the administration of a very special commune, but also with the county administration, and what is more, with the national one. We were taught a good lesson. We also had an experience in Drobeta Turnu Severin; we’ve drawn up a plan for the public space and public infrastructure in the center, which hasn’t been carried out yet. Unfortunately for us, that is all; it’s a matter of distance, in the end. We’ve been tempted to participate into projects in Brăila, Iași or Craiova, yet they are far away and it’s hard to carry on a project at such great distance.
Is it only a matter of physical distance or is it also one involving different visions?
It [the difference of vision] is something I don’t really buy! As concerns the culture of public space and the use of public space, we, who live in Transylvania, can learn a lot from Moldova and, in particular, from the south. In other parts of the country, space is certainly used more extensively and socially than in Transylvania. I think one needs to use public space to meet people in a more open and social manner. Public space is used there even if it isn’t in a very good shape.
It’s my own opinion. Nonetheless, I’ve heard stories from other people who visited and also carried out investment projects in Moldova, Muntenia; they were all amazed at the number of people who use the public space. Oltenița, Călărași, Slobozia, included; there, people need space for various purposes: trading spaces, playgrounds, and also for old men who would sit and watch other people. They live their normal social lives, and there will be projects for them, I believe. I can’t see any difference in this matter.
It’s good to hear what you say, because we, who live in the south or east of the country tend to see Transylvanian towns bathed in an ideal light.
Oh, yes. Please, stop doing this. There are certain aspects that went well or maybe are known better, yet many of the good things are quite recent. At least the city of Cluj has witnessed a huge leap after Funar’s mayorhood was over; but if you look behind, there have been only 15 years. So, we spent a longer period under Funar’s mayorhood than without it. We are still experiencing the consequences of what happened during those years. We live side by side with those who voted for him, loved him, loved the Romanian standard and enjoyed speaking about the origins of our people. In a word, we are still living the whole story that drove us crazy and charmed the constituency for years. Such outcomes do not just vanish in thin air once the mayorhood is over.
New blocks are being built, and Cluj and its environs occupy the top of housing demand list. How can you integrate these neighborhoods in the city? What can be done after they were built in that way?
Let me begin with a sort of conclusion: in general, they built worse after the Revolution. At least in matters of distribution of density and public infrastructure. I don’t imply only the access distribution and green zones, but also things appertaining to education, culture and commerce. I’m talking about neighborhoods, not about the demolitions of city downtowns. The neighborhoods and – more often than not – the apartments were much better than what’s now on the market, because now the latter is focused simply on profit and nobody holds it responsible. It’s a great shame, because huge reserves from population’s money have been spent on real estate investments, and people have to pay back their loans for poor quality housing. It is not only bad housing – let’s say you are lucky enough to find a good apartment or house – but also poor quality zones. There are only a few zones that are similar to the planned neighborhoods under communism. Even if you’re lucky enough and own a villa or an apartment or a penthouse, a lawn and a golden retriever, a belvedere and a barbecue, you may find yourself in a squalid zone. It’s utterly outrageous what people have been allowed to be doing during all these years, sometimes on inconceivable sums of money.
Do local administrations have sufficient instruments to change things?
Yes, they do, because it all depends on the decision making and the planning system that have to be applied. It is there. And it is not only local administrations’ fault, it’s all about the quality of service that the professionals perform, which unfortunately has become quite low due to market demands.
You mean the developers’ demands?
Partly. And the developers seeing that nobody holds them responsible for it and that they can get with it easily, just do the same or even worse. They appeal to all sorts of seemingly amusing yet sad details, such as diminishing furniture size in a booklet photo just to make the room seem larger. They simply cheat on their clients. Or they change kitchens into rooms. Yet, at the level of neighborhood planning, they gave up on anything that would make them accountable for poor quality. Thus, in mono-functional zones with poor housing quality, no infrastructure has emerged; for them there is no hope. Since there is no public transport and one has to depend on the car or walk to school or work, people are socially isolated. It’s dangerous to ride your bike, because there is no bike path and roads are crowded. From my viewpoint, such issues are beyond retrieval.
Who is supposed to deal with such cases? Have you noticed any efforts from your architect-colleagues?
I’ve noticed the efforts from a few of my architect-colleagues. A tiny yet vigorous group, very dedicated and determined. They cover all age and education categories, from kindergarten to high school, with ever growing numbers. They can’t go everywhere, in all schools, but more and more of them carry out volunteering activities. In fact, they make up for the absence of urban education programs that should be run by the Ministry of Education. There is one particular association called “De-a Arhitectura” [Let’s play with architecture]. I also know the efforts of my architect-colleagues working in administration; they took their job seriously to the point of clashing with their co-workers, because they check projects, demand quality work, create booklets for clients or smaller developers to advise them on the procedures involving land parceling, on the risks, conditions, and so on. There are but few examples, as it always happens with us. Such efforts are not meaningless in the least bit, and I think they should be cherished, because it’s hard to take such tasks on your shoulders when you’re surrounded not only by carelessness, but also by hatred whenever you check on their projects, demand quality work, and send projects back to be redesigned. Many times this is seen as “job disobedience”. As a rule, such projects are not checked and nobody can see them. Unfortunately, this is the norm everywhere: absence of transparency and quality and punishment of those who wish to change things. And this is also the case of architects-in-chief.
Now, according to the recent legislative changes, the architect-in-chief has neither the rank nor the responsibilities of a public employee. He or she will be employed on the basis of commercial contracts like in a ‘limited company’. This is what the national administration and Parliament have offered us all: a number of persons or ‘limited companies’ elected under no legal provisions, with no responsibility in a domain of upmost public responsibility and under the threat of being ousted if they disobeyed their clients. The client is not the population, as in the case of public officers, but the mayor, who can say that if you don’t mind your business, he will choose someone else to be the next architect-in-chief. In my opinion, this is the black hole from the current legislation at the level of daily activities of urban development. We are all demanding that corruption be punished, but you don’t need to be corrupted in this field because things can be dealt without. By the law.
A major role in shaping the real estate market is played today by the First Home Program. It creates a good number of two-room apartments that can cover the bank loans. How viable are such apartments in the long run and which are the problems they pose?
The First Home Program is a financial instrument, yet its effects are very concrete and measurable in the built form of cities, in the apartment sizes, additional amenities either inside or outside the lot of land. They will never be feasible zones; the poor quality apartments will be immediately traded once their occupants can afford something different. Perhaps we need somehow to ‘furnish’ the average-quality housing sector. There are many apartments that people can’t wait to get rid of for various reasons: a child is on the way or you can now afford something better. I think the program will be closed or, if not, its pace will be somehow slowed down because its budget is increasingly limited, the terms are more complicated and loans are more expensive. In my opinion, this program is outdated, and people fear a new crisis is coming.
What signs can you see?
A slower building pace and dropping of demand levels. There are but few towns in which the demand is higher than the offer; Cluj is certainly one of them, which explains developers’ speculative prices and, which is literally a theft. In other towns the demand is constantly increasing, a thing that can have various causes: import of population, moving from poor housing to better housing or transfer of savings from black and gray zones, that is, by buying your apartment with a bagful of money, which is indeed a phenomenon. You can’t see this case of higher demand than offer in the rest of the country, and this is why the real estate market is dwindling. There are uneven levels of development in Romania. This is true not only for some big cities and their surrounding areas, but also for entire regions.
How can the user, the buyer, so to speak, be more involved in the housing issue?
The user’s voice appears when things have already been settled. This is the principal explanation. It emerges when the plan has been approved, the project completed, and the block already built – although there are still many who buy things that are still on paper, which is quite incomprehensible, and pay for something that does not exist, without even having a clue about it all. Even if the user’s voice is heard, that leads to some hand-on consequences if it finds the right niche, which is not, for sure, the developers’ ear, because the latter is deaf. A developer will always say: “We follow the market demand”; in reality he sees the market demands and lowers them a bit. At the end of the day the buyer has to buy, not because he likes whatever he’s buying. Or he buys because of the zone or I don’t know for what reason. You’d expect a client – the collective personage – be more aware of his or her purchase and look into various options. In fact, he or she doesn’t. Market rules are sometimes very different from what we’ve expected or what we’ve pleaded for. A client can be heard when he is aware of his rights as a citizen.
Interview conducted by Vlad Odobescu, published on Scena9 on July 30, 2018.
