the social production and construction of the central park of cluj

UNIVERSITATEA BABEŞ-BOLYAI
FACULTATEA DE SOCIOLOGIE ŞI ASISTENŢĂ SOCIALĂ
SPECIALIZAREA SOCIOLOGIE
THE SOCIAL PRODUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION
OF THE CENTRAL PARK OF CLUJ
Advisors:
Conf. univ. dr. Rudolf Poledna
Asis. univ. drd. Norbert Petrovici
Candidate:
ZAHA ANDREEA VASILICA
Cluj-Napoca
2009
Abstract: The subject of the present research is the Central Park of Cluj Napoca.
This space will be analyzed by using the theoretical approach of the public
space as a result of the production and construction process. The evolution of
the park, its physical building, will be revealed by the help of the historical data.
Reconstructing the symbolical attached meaning of this place implies a general
view over the functions and the roles of the public space. Considering the fact
that this place is such a complex one, the foucaultion concept of heterotopy
was used in order to reveal the multiple and different micro spaces and
meanings that compose this contradictory place. The perception of the park
having in mind the sensory capacity of the human being permits the shaping of
the symbolical way of experiencing the place. The realm of the public life is
captured by referring to the ways in which this space is used. The
transformations that occurred across the time regarding the use of this public
space are revealing the politics of administration and functioning but also the
interest of the authorities in taking care of the park and of its users. Although
public and opened to diversity, the park is a regulated place in which certain
rules are required to be fulfilled for its good functioning. All in all, this paper
presents the space throw the lens of its evolution and attached meaning.
2
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 4
METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................................... 8
THE SOCIAL PRODUCTION OF THE PARK.............................................................................................10
The European Park as a heterotopia .................................................................................................................... 10
Cluj’s Central Park as a space of civility ................................................................................................................ 14
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARK ........................................................................................19
The Central Park as a heterotopy ......................................................................................................................... 22
Patterns of Utilization .......................................................................................................................................... 23
Changing Space .................................................................................................................................................... 26
Respecting Rules and Regulation ......................................................................................................................... 32
CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................................36
REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................38
3
INTRODUCTION
“Space is permeated with social relations; it is not only supported by
social relations but it is also producing and produced by social relations”.
(Lefebvre 1991: 286)
Space is more than a physical aspect. It is created by the action of the people and by the
meaning and values they attach to the place. Moreover, place is also influencing people because
they are very receptive to sensory stimulus and to psychological benefits offered by it.
Consequently, the relation between people and space is based on a permanent process of
changing information. The current paper aims to analyses this relation between space and people,
mainly the public space (the park) as a result of the social relations. For realizing this, I will
focus my attention of two core concepts, more precisely, on the social production and social
construction on the place. The social production concept refers here to “the historical emergence,
political and economic formation of urban space” (Low, 1996: 861) and the social construction
may be associated with “the phenomenological and symbolic experience of space as mediated by
social processes such as exchange, conflict and control” (Low, 1996: 862). These concepts will
be helpful for presenting the relationship between public space and the social forces that
contributed to the creation, development and transformation of the park. Its symbolical meaning,
significance and functionality across the time will also be revealed in order to shape a clearer
image and attributed values.
The social space that will be described and analyzed is the Central Park of Cluj Napoca.
Studying the evolution of this public space might be a great opportunity to see how and why the
changes in the society modify the way in which the park is seen, because “the analysis and
interpretation of building decisions cannot be understood apart from social and economic
institutional forces that continuously influence actors, nor can the interpretation of symbolic
meaning be divorced from these forces or history” (Low, 1996: 861). Aspect about the social
construction of the park will be revealed gradually from the empirical presentation of the data.
The election of this field was made based on several reasons. Firstly, this park is biggest and the
most important green public space from the city. It is a common possession of the people from
Cluj and it is the most representative ‘big back yard of the city’. Secondly, it has a place of its
own in the structure of the city and it is seen as a particular place that has its specificity and its
4
meaning for the city. Thirdly, very few previous researches (Mândruţ Petruţa, The Central Park
of Cluj. Significating Space) have been conducted about this complex public space. The Central
Park will be “theorized” and the human’s experiences in this place will be “spatialized”. The term
“spatialize” is used here for localizing “physically and conceptually, social relations and social practice in
social space” (Low, 1996: 861). In particular I will read the Central Park as a public space intrinsically
linked with the social life of the city. I prefer this specific reading since public spaces act as a
“self-organizing public service; just as hospitals and schools provide a shared resource to
improve people’s quality of life, public spaces form a shared spatial resource from which
experiences and values are created in ways that are not possible in our private lives alone”(Mean
and Tims, 2005). The term “public” has a variety of meanings, from a strictly political definition
of collective citizenry to the more popular usage of designing everyone and anyone. Roger
Scruton, an architectural historian and critic (cited in Beng Huat Chua & Norman Edwards,
1992: 2, emphasis mine) sustains that “in each instance the term ‘public space’ is used to
designate a location which is (i) designed, however minimally, such that (ii) everyone has the
rights of access, (iii) encounters in it between individual users are unplanned and unexceptional,
and (iv) their behavior towards each other is subjected to rules none other than those of common
norms of social civility”.
Matthew Carmona et al. (2008: 4-5) offers two definitions for public space, one which in
an encompassing definitions and defines the absolute limits of the subject and second, the
narrower definition, that was adopted as the focus of the empirical research. The broad definition
of public space is constructed as follows: “Public space relates to all those parts of the built and
natural environment, public and private, internal and external, urban and rural, where the public
have free, although not necessarily unrestricted, access. It encompasses: all the streets, squares
and other rights of way, whether predominantly in residential, commercial or community/civic
uses; the open spaces and parks; the open countryside; the ‘public/private’ spaces both internal
and external where public access is welcomed – if controlled – such as private shopping centers
or rail and bus stations; and the interiors of key public and civic buildings such as libraries,
churches, or town halls”. The narrow definition relates to “all those parts of the built and natural
environment where the public has free access. It encompasses: all the streets, squares and other
rights of way, whether predominantly in residential, commercial or community/ civic uses; the
open spaces and parks; and the ‘public/private’ spaces where public access is unrestricted (at
5
least during daylight hours). It includes the interfaces with key internal and external and private
spaces to which the public normally has free access”. Categorizing the various types of public
spaces might be a difficult task. Lynch (1981) names some of these places, but his typology
focuses rather on spaces that are dominated by hard landscapes not by greenery. He identifies
regional parks, squares, plazas, linear parks, adventure playgrounds, wastelands, playgrounds
and playing fields.
Urban public spaces, are also seen as “theatrical spaces” (John Allen, 2006: 445)
consumed passively, by those who happen to pass through them. The design, layout, sound,
lightening, solidity are effective means, symbolic and material qualities of a space. Stephen Carr,
in his book, Public Space (1994: 4), also refers to this theatrical angle of the public space, by
affirming that “public space is the stage upon which the drama of communal life unfolds”. In this
sense, Louis Mumford (1964: 173) reminds about the theatrical character when he draws the
attention about the function of the public spaces in the city, which is ‘to permit, indeed to
encourage, the greatest possible number of meetings, encounters, challenges, between various
persons and groups, providing as it were a stage upon which the drama of social life can be
enacted, with the actors taking their turn, too, as spectators” .
Public space changes its meaning over the time and different meanings are being
attributed. The last decades of the twentieth century produced a vigorous debate in architecture
and urbanism on the transformation of public space: on the one hand discourses that lamented
the ‘end of public space’ (Sorkin 1992) and, on the other, contrasting opinions that advocated
new forms of public space located in private spaces for collective use (shopping malls or sports
centers) or in alternative spaces such as wastelands or parking lots (Chase et al. 1999). The
transformation of the public space in a sense of renewal and change of its form is also pointed by
Carr (1992:1): “the expansion in number and types of public spaces seen today, including new
commercial spaces, community gardens, greenways, and preserved natural areas, shows how
changes in the ways we live together continue to shape the design and management of places.”
The ‘end of public space’ is seen as a possible consequence of the privatization process
because lately, more and more spaces that used to be public are transformed in locations that
develop private economic or commercial activities. Some consider that the public space is
transforming itself but never dies. Setha Low (2005: 1) is one of the authors that sustain the idea
6
of changing by emphasizing the apparition of new challenges, by affirming that “in this century,
we are facing a different kind of threat to public space – not one of disuse, but of patterns of
design and management that exclude some people and reduce social and cultural diversity”. She
admits that on one hand, the exclusion is determined by certain programs that have the aim to
reduce the undesirables. On the other hand, it is a by – product of growing process of
privatization, commercialization, historic preservation and specific strategies of design and
planning. These processes can diminish the vitality and vibrancy of the space in such a way that
only one kind of person (tourist or middle class visitor) feels welcomed. A consequence of this
complex process of changing is the decrease of the interest in creating and taking care of the
public spaces as more and more privatized, gated or fenced, closed for renovation, and/or
redesigned to restrict activities. John Allen (2006: 441) also agrees that “something of the
character and quality of public spaces in metropolitan centers has been lost” because “the
privatization of the public space, the intrusion of the market into the realm of public culture, has
seemingly done much to undermine the variety and uniqueness of urban centers.” Richard
Sennett (1977) in “The Fall of Public Man” documents the social, political, and economic factors
leading to the “end of public culture”, the privatization of people’s lives. This development
toward an intimate society began, in large measure, in the nineteenth century and has continued,
creating in Sennett’s view, the “tyrannies of intimacy”, “denials of the reality and worth of
impersonal life”.
7
METHODOLOGY
I have used several methods of gathering data in order to realize an effective
methodology that provides multiple kinds of data. The research methods that I used are the
observation and the interview. The utilization of different strategies of observation the fieldwork
proved to be very efficient. First, I was interested in capturing a general atmosphere of the place
by being attentive to the actors, their actions and to the physical structure of the park. This
process of getting an initial sense of the place was done by focusing on the continuous capturing
of data from every corner of the park. This process needed a strong concentration upon the
details and a continuous movement of the visual and of the steps because “only through endless
walking can the designer absorb into his being the true scale of urban spaces” (Edmund Bacon,
1975: 20).I observed each sector of activity having in mind also the time dimension on both
weekend and weekdays. Second, after getting more familiar with the place, the observation
process helped me to construct a map with activities’ location, the micro spaces that exist in the
park and with the micro groups that appear. Finally, during the last phase of participant
observation, I photographed people, places and situations for having detailed descriptions and
comparing present images with the ones from the past. In this phase, I also started speaking with
the people for being more involved in everyday park life and for being able to prepare the
interview questions. Using questions that emerged from the observation process, I began to
interview the users. I completed a series of semi structured interviews for reconstructing the
image of the park in the past, but also for capturing its present situation. For stimulating the
interviewed to be more open, sincere and detailed in his answer, I conducted all the interviews in
the park. For reconstructing the social production of space, I gathered historical documentation
from history books about Cluj Napoca, the archives of the Central Universitary Library,
newspapers, articles and also the elderly narratives.
The elderly narratives proved to be very efficient for capturing a past-present comparison
and they provided, also concerning the present, more concrete and detailed information than the
adults or the youngsters. As a consequence, from a total of fifteen interviews, nine had, as
subjects, old people. It is also true that I had some problems with some of the old people in
keeping the conversation focused on the subject of interest, because many tended to include
more general aspects, as politics, parties and educational system in Romania of our times.
8
When gathering the interviews, I did not confronted with major problems. Regarding the
refuses, I must confess that negative attitudes and refuses come from homeless people that live
there, and from some bored and skeptical old people. At the very beginning of the interviews,
more clearly, the first person that I entered in contact with did not even look at me when I was
presenting myself and my interests. His attitude (“I’m not interested in what you’re doing, go
away!”) discouraged me but most of the people were open and amiable. My presence in the park
with the photo camera and with the commonplace book increased users’ attention and curiosity
concerning the purpose of my activity. This situation was a good opportunity to participate to an
informal conversation in which I tried to catch the answers to my topics of interest without
making the individual feeling himself somehow constrained or judged, as he might feel in an
interview.
9
THE SOCIAL PRODUCTION OF THE PARK
The European Park as a heterotopia
(Social) space is a (social) product (Lefebvre, 1991: 26)
The idea of space’s production was coined by Henri Lefebvre, the French sociologist who
began writing about this aspect by providing a framework that can be used to relate the sense of
place encountered in cultural landscape studies to the politics and economy. Lefebvre argues that
“every society in history has shaped a distinctive social space that meets its intertwined
requirements for economic production and social reproduction” (cited in Hayden, 1995: 19). For
him, places and buildings are testimonies of the evolution and each place can show his age
because “time was inscribed in space, and natural space is merely the lyrical and tragic script of
natural time” (Lefebvre, 1991: 95). As far as “every social space is the outcome of a process with
many aspects and many contributing currents” (Lefebvre, 1995: 110), the process of production
is much related with the society’s mode of production and with its relations of production.
Lefebvre argues that “each mode of production has its own particular space, the shift from one
mode to another must entail the production of a new space” (Lefebvre, 1991: 46). He proposes
three model of space production: the medieval model, the capitalist and neocapitalist and the
socialist model. The medieval way of producing space was much related to the symbolic values
and so, many, monasteries, cathedrals were build for keeping the peasant community closed. The
medieval way of producing space was much related to the symbolic values and so, many
monasteries, cathedrals were built for keeping the peasant community closed. Sennett (1990: x.i,
cited in Carmona et al, 2008: 38) also agrees that “the Ancient Greek could use his or her eyes to
see the complexities of life. The temples, markets, playing fields, meeting places, walls, public
statuary, and paintings of the ancient city represented the culture’s values in religion, politics,
and family life”. Lefebvre (1991: 53) draws the attention that “this space (the medieval space)
was the take-off point for Western European capital accumulation, the original source and cradle
of which were the towns”. The capitalist and neocapitalist mode of production invested their
resources in building “abstract spaces”, more specifically, banks, business centers, motorways,
airports and information lattices. According to Lefebvre (1991: 53), this type of producing space
contributed to the disintegration of the city. The socialist period, with its period of revolution and
intense change, “merely established the preconditions for a new space” because in this period
10
“no architectural innovation has occurred, no specific space has been created” (Lefebvre, 1991:
53).
As it was presented, different historical periods, different societies and ways of
production brought various spatial practices, representations of space and representational
spaces. The garden functions “according to the synchrony of the culture in which it occurs”
(Foucault, 2001: 267) being also influenced by the different political, economic aspects and
fashion patterns of the time. In what follows, some cultural variations in the style of production
gardens will be clarified. Each period and each civilization has created some patterns of
gardening and park creation. The history of gardening extends across at least 4,000 years of
human civilization and it reveals the existence of some types garden styles as: the Persian
gardens, Egyptian, Hellenistic and Roman gardens, gardens of Byzantium, Chinese and Japanese
gardens, European gardens (Italian Renaissance, French Baroque, Anglo-Dutch gardens,
Landscape gardens, Romantic gardens, Picturesque gardens, “Gardenesque” gardens, “Wild”
gardens).
The garden’s space functions as a heterotopy because is surrounded by the landscape
founded around it and it might remain in relation with it but not necessary, because it is, anyway,
different from its surroundings. Heterotopy, literally meaning “other place”, is a rich concept in
urban design that describes a space that is on the margins of ordered or civil society, and one that
possesses multiple, fragmented or even incompatible meanings. The concept was coined by
Foucault in the late 1960s and defines “real places, effective places, places designed in the very
process of institutionalizing a society, places that are a kind of counter placements, a kind of
utopias realized effectively in which the real placements, all the other real placements that can be
found inside a culture, are at once represented, contested, and inversed, some kind of places
outside any place, even if in fact localizable” (Foucault, 2001: 254). The author presents a
variety of heterotopy examples (cemeteries, movies, gardens and carpets, boarding schools,
bordellos, mental institutions), but the most relevant, in this context, is the garden. The garden
was reminded by Foucault as being “perhaps the oldest example of these heterotopias that take
the form of contradictory sites”. In his view, “the garden is the smallest parcel of the world and
then it is the totality of the world”, “a sort of happy, universalizing heterotopia since the
beginnings of antiquity” (Foucault, 2001: 269), a microcosm of different environments with
vegetation from around the world.
11
The relation of one garden with the exterior implies elements related with the psychical
structure of the people and with the climate of that geographic zone in which a style or another
imposes. Viorica Constantinescu, in her book about “The art of the garden”(1992: 11), emphasis
the influence of the nationality when designing gardens. She sustains that English people and
Germans people have the tendency to surround the garden with high green or stone walls. In
contrast, the garden of the Southern people is more opened to the exterior. The author finds as a
possible explanation the introvert character of the Northern people and
extrovert of the Southern people. The clime conditions, the need of
garden protection in Northern areas against the storms and against the
cold wind, might be also an explanation. The French style of
constructing gardens imposes the ration, will and abilities for shaping the
nature, in such a way that the results must look better than the real nature. In France, the XVII
century brought the idea that the nature is almost all the time weak and nasty, nothing grandiose
and beautiful can be found in it, its defect has to be recognized and corrected. Every plant has its
own place, being order in a military style. “Their gardens epitomize man
dominating and manipulating nature to show his authority, wealth, and
power” (Rogers, 2001: 165-167).
In contrast with the perfect order of the French gardens, the
Romanian gardens and parks are considered as being beautiful oases of
greenery in the grey texture of the urban although the perfection does not exist. For the
Romanians, the nature is by itself a work of art and it does not needs
much help to look organized. Green spaces have to look as closed as
possible as nature, with its complex elements that create a natural
disorder. The Romanian park are not developing policies of forbidding the
walk on the grass, instead, they are more closely to the English model of park, promoting the
idea of complete use and joy of the nature with its motto: “Please walk on the grass!”
The term garden can be considered here as being synonym with the park. This relation of
synonymy is often used because the idea of the park comes from the functional transformation of
the private gardens owned by the high class. Historically, parks were initiated for a range of
reasons and needs of the urban world. In the late eighteen and early nineteenth centuries, park
increasingly became identified with cities. German towns turned old fortifications into public
12
gardens. The London public had been admitted, with regulations, to royal grounds such as Hyde
Park as early as the seventeenth century, and over the next two centuries other royal lands were
open space, whose tradition is more difficult to document. The cultural geographer J. B. Jackson
(1970) contrasts two types of park land: the ‘designed park’ produced by landscape gardens and
‘unstructured’ playgrounds, where, at least until the late nineteenth century, the common people
and particularly adolescents, could exercise and play and enjoy themselves, and at the same time
participate in community life. The idea of parks seemed to have its roots in the nobles and boyars
intention of opening their gardens to the public. The aim of this intention was to gain their
respect and admiration. The fests offered by them, were good opportunities for the middle class
to learn specific gestures and patterns of behavior characteristic to the high class. Stephen Carr
notices that this idea of social education was also met when the parks began to be built: “some of
the early parks developed in cities were seen as places where the lower classes could view and
imitate the activities and postures of the more affluent” (Stephen Carr, 1993: 44). At a certain
point, parks aimed at a “commonwealth, a kind of democracy, where the poor, the rich, the
mechanic, the merchant and the man of letters, mingle on a footing of perfect equality” (Taylor,
1999: 427). Contrary to this idealistic vision, parks continued to be spaces for manifesting the
class differential patterns. Middle class people seemed to choose “passive leisure pursuits,
cultural improvement and refined manners, the working class sought active, outdoor recreation,
fun and games” (Taylor, 1999: 423).
Efforts to design parks, to preserve and develop green open space in and around cities are
efforts to create a healthy society and to maintain contact with the original pastoral landscape.
Given the fact that most of the people from the city migrated from rural areas, the park had also
the function of adaptation to the urban and remembering about the rural. Consequently, park
remains “an imitation of the nature throw the means of the nature” (Kant, cited in
Constantinescu, 1992: 8), “a natural resort, where the people of all classes, escaping from the
glare, the glitter, and turmoil of the city, might find relief of the mind, and physical relaxation”
(Taylor, 1999: 465).This image of the nature it was not rustic, it did not remind people of the
agricultural landscapes recently left behind by many new urban dwellers and was not usually
wild or awe-inspiring (Taylor, 1994) but it was a ‘civilized and organized expression of nature’
(Taylor, 1994), a nature managed and understood: mankind expressing supremacy over nature,
but in a different manner from an agricultural situation. The producing of this park implies a
13
complex process guided by the necessity of the space to fulfill various human needs (ecological,
physiological, emotional, socio-cultural, and spiritual) and functions. The function of cohesion,
control, development and communication are some reasons that sustain the necessity of the
public space. Their absence might affect the citizenship dimension, and “public life can threaten
governments and they may come to fear and repress the communication of information and the
demands of their citizens. When public life and public spaces are missing from a community,
residents can become isolated from each other, less likely to offer mutual help and support”
(Stephen Carr, 1993: 25).
Cluj’s Central Park as a space of civility
“The identity of every population is build based on its space,
constructions and beautiful places from the town”. (Vasile Dâncu)
In the context of urban expansion caused by the modernization and industrialization
process, officials and the elites of the city, begin to be more conscious that the construction of
the park is a “must have” of the city because of the functions that it has but also because park
building was a fashionable trend in European urban world. What I
shall be seeking to present in the next paragraphs in the process of
social space production of the most representative green urban space
from Cluj Napoca that is the Central Park. The park is situated at the
periphery of the center and it constitutes a transition zone to other
districts of the city (Grigorescu and Plopilor districts). Longitudinally, it starts in front of the
Hungarian Opera and ends near the Stadium. Its story reveals aspects concerning the process of
production, presenting details about the political, economical and social context of building and
shaping. Central Park, the original “Simion Barnutiu” Park, was socially produced (planned,
build, designed and maintained) differently, in distinct historical and sociopolitical contexts. Its
beginnings (1812) are related with the political and economic situation of the city, because the
1812 is the year in which Cluj Napoca becomes the administrative centre of the region. The
multidimensional development of the city determined changes concerning the urban plan that
have to fulfill the needs of a greater number of citizens.
14
The space on which the park is build is, in 1812, just a swampy field with a mill
functioning here. The building of the mill is rented for over 5 years and the place begins to be a
kind of popular saloon. At this time the space of the park is still divided having on one side a
swampy field and on the other side, over a small bridge, the estate of count Haller. There are
several gardens belonging to aristocrats that would open them to the public. This practice of
opening the private garden to the public was much popular and made
with the precise reason of attracting, impressing the lower classes and
gaining their respect, admiration. The openness for the public was
made with certain special occasions as fests and it was seen as an
opportunity for satisfying the curiosity of the lower classes.
The available financial resources and the intentions of creating
a park are not really the central objectives of the local authorities. The
real initiative of the park building is brought by the Woman
Association that began to plant trees and to build roads using donations and charity money.
Between 1827-1837, the space of the park is administrates by this association, because it buys
the place from the count and build a weaving mill for young woman. Usually the parks have
been created as a remarkable redefinition and expansion of city government’s responsibilities to
its citizens but the case of the Central Park is particular because it was not created by the
government, its initiative belong to the Woman Association.
Realizing the importance and the need of a specific organization that takes care of this
place, between 1837-1865, the park enters in the administration and care of the Park’s
Association. This Association is created at a charity ball organized
for celebrating the return of the Dieta of Transilvania at Cluj, which
was temporally moved to Sibiu as a political sanction. The collected
money from this ball is used for the construction of the promenade
alleys in the park.
By 1840, this public places becomes a very crowded one because here, people search
opportunities for communication, participation, orientation, and interaction. Stephen Carr (1992:
24, emphasis mine) remind us that “public life can support the essential communication system
of cities, the linkage that holds them together, helping to orient people and enabling connections
15
both to community and preurban nature.” Public life enable the transmission of important public
messages for people, some of them the symbolic message of the power of the state or their own
power, others the news of the local area. We are a sociable species, we need interaction, and
therefore, we feel at home with other people around (William Whyte, 1980). The need of
togetherness is pointed by William Whyte (1980) when affirming that public place represent an
attractive space for people because we are most attracted by other people.The need of being
together is also remembered by Dan Burden when affirming that “people are happiest when there
are other people around”. The sociability treat of human being is also
admitted by Henry Shaftoe (2008: 66), when saying that, “as a species
we are sociable animals who like to gather in groups or packs. Thus,
when we see people like us lingering in a space, we are attracted to it,
over and above any physical or environmental attractions that the place may have”. The
importance of the public places in a city becomes to be more important because streets, squares
and parks “can help people to satisfy, significant human rights that it can be shaped to define and
protect, and special cultural meanings that it can best convey” (Stephen Carr, 1993: 3).
The park has gone through seasons of germination and drought, of frost and bloom. The
political context of the time influences the patterns and the frequency of use. The popularity of
the park decreased considerably after the 1848, the year of the revolution. The place receives
new attached meaning and utilization models, being used by the army. The army installs here
and builds a covered basin for swimming. Originally designed only for soldiers, but later on,
open to the public as well, for a certain fee.
New investments of development are planned in 1866, when a new Association of the
Park is instituted in order to lease and administrate the place for 20 years, as a stocks society.
They promise to build the Kioszk, the lake and a pavilion for the fanfare. There is an interesting
condition that the incomes from the functioning of the buildings in the park, after the 20 years
period, should only be used for the administration of the park. Another type of income is realized
by selling trees grown in a nursery in the park, not to mention the selling of hay.
The constant care and interest in the development contributed to the increasing popularity
of the park. The actions of cleaning and maintenance of that time were made with the available
tools but generally, not really much was done because the natural aspect was preferred: “then the
grass was not cut, but it was fine because that was the fashion of the time. You didn’t have said
16
that it is untidy because that was the way it used to be” (M/78/I12). By 1872, the place has some
alternatives of entertainment as merry-go-round, hurdy-gurdy, target shooting. The merry-goround area received a symbolical meaning because this area becomes a meeting place for maids
and soldiers. The artistic activities developed in the park have begun to be more and more
consistent. Firstly, spectacles of the various chorus of the cities, are taking place here, then
theatrical plays and skating spectacles. The popular feasts that are kept in the park are a much
preferred entertainment option around 1875 and so, the costs of organization are constantly
growing.
The financial costs of provision and upkeep of parks, although the responsibility of local
authorities has increasingly had to compete with other provisions that local authorities have to
make. A solution for the park’s budget is seen the application of a fee but this alternative proves
to be inefficient and is kept only for two days. In this context of increasing number of users,
safety and surveillance agents are needed and by the year 1876,
policemen are hired to patrol the place.
As far as a place is a social product, the problems of the society
affect its functionality and popularity. The First Words’ War is an event
that contributes to the decrease of the users’ number, but also the esthetic and care of the place
was neglected. When the war ended, the importance of the accommodation increased and,
consequently, the perception of the space was different.
Around 1900, the park’s main alee road was used for promenades with the bicycle, but
also by hansoms (for people) and wagons (for products and goods). The sport activity is
developed in the park and around it. The office of the Athletic Club can be found there and on
the lake, in winter time, there was a skating-rink. After 1918 and during the interwar period, the
place is obviously still one of the most appreciated in Cluj, although history and - along with it cultural norms and behaviours might have changed. As proof of its admiration and value for the
city, in 1939, Carol II, the highest royal official in Romania, pays a visit to the park as a
representative place for the beautiful city of Cluj.
17
For a good functioning and administration of the city, the city hall approves in
1947, the Regulations for the organization of the service “Gardens and Parks” from
Cluj Napoca1, organization that will focus its work on taking care of the green space of
the city. Later on, in 1989, this organization recodes the historical and art monuments of
the city and so, four monuments from the Central Park will receive deserved measures
of maintenance, protection and surveillance. This four monuments are: Liviu
Rebreanu’s statue (sculpted in bronze and stone by Romul Ladea), Octavian Goga’s
statue (sculpted in bronze by Mircea Spataru), George Cosbuc’s statue (sculpted in
bronze and stone by Petre Arthur) and the fountain (sculpted in bronze and stone by
Nagy Miklos).
The story continues with data that are closer to the present times. Detailed
information was obtained from the consultation of the newspapers and retrospective
interviews. As far as people’s position is highly subjective, the interviews were the most useful
tool for discovering the values, meaning and signification of the park. In the following section,
the process of social construction will begin to get shape.
1
The Gazette of the Cluj municipality, XXII, nr.1, 1.I.1984, p. 25-27
18
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARK
The ambiance of the park
In what follow, it will be revealed the functioning of this heterotopy (patterns of
utilization, users and problems) its benefits and values for the community. What I shall be
seeking to demonstrate is the “the phenomenological and symbolic experience of space as
mediated by social processes such as exchange, conflict and control” (Low, 1996: 862).The
scenery for the everyday performance of the community is socially constructed. This process of
social construction is determined by the attribution of meaning and values to the place and so,
the space and the society are clearly related in a two way process, where “people modify spaces
and change the environment (public realm) while at the same time their behavior (public life) is
being influenced by them” (Carmona, 2003: 106-107).
For John Allen (2006: 445) the ambient has a certain type of power, a character of its
own, “a particular atmosphere, a special mood, a certain feeling- that affects how we experience
it and which, in turn, seeks to introduce certain stances which we might otherwise have chosen
not to adopt. There is a certain quality about such setting, or qualities, which show themselves in
such a way as both to encourage and to inhibit how we move around, use and act within them.”
He also sustains that “the staging of publicness nowadays is about the production of certain
affects which enable people to experience a place as open, accessible and inclusive – and to act
meaningfully within it.” For Allen (2006: 448), seduction is “an instrumental mode of power
primed to shape and mould the will of the many whilst allowing individuals the possibility of
opting out “works through enticement and encouragements, directing our sensibilities along
certain lines and not others.”
For a detailed and better structured presentation of the empirical findings regarding the
social construction of the park, I found it necessary to use as guiding references the main roles
and functions of a public space. These characteristics will not be discussed separately but rather
they will be understood as long as the empirical evidences are presented. Akkar (2005), focuses
on eight aspects: the physical, psychological, ecological, social, political, economical, symbolic
and esthetical role. A range of positive functions of open spaces, including provision for
19
relaxation and recreation, conservation of wildlife, natural and agricultural resources, scenery
and the shaping and control of urbanisation, have been suggested by Eckbo (1969). More
recently work undertaken for the London Planning Advisory Committee (Llewelyn-Davies
Planning, 1992) suggests that parks have seven functions—recreational structural, amenity,
ecological, social, cultural and educational—and that the benefits of parks and recreation are
personal, social, economic and environmental. The Council of Europe identifies open space and
its importance thus:
“Open space is an essential part of the urban heritage, a strong element in the
architectural and aesthetic form of a city, plays an important educational role, is
ecologically significant, is important for social interaction and in fostering community
development and is supportive of economic objectives and activities. In particular it helps
reduce the inherent tension and conflict in deprived parts of urban areas of Europe; it has
an important role in providing for the recreational and leisure needs of a community and
has an economic value in that of environmental enhancement” (Council of Europe, 1986).
Although there are these varieties of expressing and verbalizing the role of the public, the
original directions and the dimensions reminded are, more are less, the same. For a better
understanding I found it necessary to present visual graphics of this gathered opinions.
Fig. 1. The roles of the Public Space
20
Fig. 2. The Social Role of the Public Space
There is a growing view that the success of good social policy should not be measured by
economic gains but by improvements in wellbeing and happiness of citizens (Layard, 2005).
Finbar Brereton and colleagues at University College Dublin, have found that ‘environmental
and urban conditions’ are critical to people’s sense of wellbeing: ‘Location specific factors are
shown to have a direct impact on life satisfaction’ (Brereton et al, 2006:2). Therefore welldesigned and well-managed public spaces could contribute to overall quality of a place. Learning
insofar as effective public spaces are arenas for the ‘theatre of everyday life’ they offer
considerable social learning opportunities.
People use to evaluate and to attach values to a place according to the physical, technical
aspect rather than in the sensory way. Sensory form determines feelings and emotions for
building psychological landscapes. Sensuous requirements may coincide or conflict with other
demands but cannot be separated from them in designing or judging, nor are they ‘impractical’ or
merely decorative, or even nobler than other concerns. Sensing is indispensable to being alive
(Lynch, 1971:189). As Thomsen (1998: 103) remarks, when talking about the ambiance of cities:
“Architecture without sense appeal makes people moody, grumpy, at first emotionally
21
unsatisfied and then physically ill”. The World Health Organization notices that a healthy state
implies “not the mere absence of illness, but means physical, social and mental wellbeing”.
The visual/aesthetic dimension of public space relates to the principles of encouraging
creativity and employing collaboration. Kaplan and Kaplan (1982: 81) suggest “coherence”,
“legibility”, “complexity” and “mystery” as informational qualities of environments that
contribute to people’s preferences for particular physical environments. The visual impression of
place is likely to be the most powerful sensory experience for people with good sight.
Furthermore, as Landry (2006: 50) reminds us ‘sights are better articulated, because in general
we have a rich vocabulary around physical appearance’. Although it could be argued that the
main aesthetic experience of most public spaces is a visual one, they affect the senses in other
ways, most noticeably auditory. Where there are water features, lakes, rivers and fountains
produce a pleasant sound and relaxing, an escape from the traffic noise of the city. In terms of
smell, the usual urban pollutants are likely to be noticeable and it may be that at certain times
people need to breathe fresh air.
The Central Park as a heterotopy
The Central Park is a fragmented public space that offers a multitude of activities and
micro spaces for satisfying the different needs and pleasures of the users. Its physical complexity
is composed by shady alleys for walking, benches for resting, points of food and drinks
commercialization, spaces for sport activities (unpaved alley for the ones that practice jogging,
basketball playground), hygienic services, a springboard for children, the University of Art and
Design, water spaces that function as eyes catcher for their beauty and also for entertainment (the
lake with its bouts, the fountain with its hydraulic art), a pavilion used for fanfare spectacles (in
the past) and marriages. All the buildings and micro spaces from the park give an identity to this
space and structure it in a unique way. It might be said that the park is “juxtaposing in a single
real place several spaces, several sites that are themselves incompatible” (Foucault, 2001: 267)
but each of them has a “precise and determined function” that was remodeled and transformed
across the time. These heterogenic elements, micro spaces, built together a complex public place,
a heterotopy, in Foucault’s terms.
22
The natural ‘population’ of the park is composed by vegetation (trees and plants) and
from animals (birds). The greenery and the shade are specific aspects of the park and much
searched in the summer time. According to the last census (Ziua de Cluj) the number of the
chestnuts, trees that are predominant here, reached the number of 734 and their age is no more
than 150 years. Activities of repopulation the park will young trees are constantly made because
the old chestnuts are seek and they will have to be replaced gradually. Few flowers decorate the
areas near the fountain and the statue of Octavian Goga. The grass is not a powerful element
because the shade stops its intention of growing. Although it is not so green and with a healthy
aspect, the grass carpet is an attraction for the visitors which prefer to feel the nature by laying
down.
Patterns of Utilization
Each place is experienced in certain way by the users. When experiencing, they attached
meanings, values and opinions about that place. This process of judgment and classification is
mediated by the persons and groups interacting together in a social system form, over time,
concepts or mental representations of each other's actions, and that these concepts eventually
become habituated into reciprocal roles played by the actors in relation to each other.
One can come in the park because it is “freshness in the scorching days and the twitter of
the birds gives a sensation of silence and relaxation. Sometimes I read in the park, I take pictures
and I watch the ducks from the lake” (F/20/I1). The delight of hearing the rustling of the wind
through trees and the sound of birdsong is a welcome antidote to the urban that is dominated by
traffic noise.
Even the same person comes for different reasons at different times; “sometimes to sit
tiredly, sometimes to play or to watch a game, sometimes to read or work, sometimes to show
off, sometimes to savor the hustle of the city from a retreat, sometimes in the hope of finding
acquaintances, sometimes to get closer to a bit of nature, sometimes simply to see what offers,
and almost always to be entertained by the sight of the people” (Jane Jacobs, 1962: 113). Stephen
Carr (1992: 19) points out that “the primary needs that people seek to satisfy in public spaces are
those of comfort, relaxation, active and passive engagement and discovery. Relaxation provides
relief from the stresses of daily life and both active and passive engagement with the others,
23
promote individual well-being and community. Public space can also be a setting for physically
and mentally rewarding activity, such as exercise, gardening, or conversation.”
We generally feel comforted by experiencing natural elements in the landscape. Some of
this is sensed visually, but natural elements are also experienced through hearing and touch.
Trees rustle and birds sing in the bushes, but perhaps the most vivid and popular sensual
experience for humans is that of water. Some perceive this place as an escape from the polluted
and crowded areas of the city:
“I come here to breath fresh air because I live in the center and there, the air is miserable,
you can’t even open the window” (F/67/I7),
“I breath clean air in the park because where, in Marasti, I live it is very polluted”
(F/70/I6).
“For me this place is a return into the nature’s breast. The role of the park is to assure the
escape from the urban traffic, crowded places.”(F/20/I1),
“I like being surrounded by nature. I was born in the middle of the nature in a
mountainous area so I yearn after the nature”, “I like it because I spent much time of my
childhood here” (M/67/I11).
For others the park is return in the middle of the nature motivated by the
necessity to run from the city or related to the childhood. Parks are used
differently throw the various stages of a person’s journey through life—
childhood, adolescence, early and late adult life and finally the later years of
life. “A park may be somewhere that a baby is walked though in the pram, where children play
and ride bikes, where adults jog for health reasons and where an elderly
person might go for a walk and to visit the café” (Woolley, 2005: 75). As
children people see the park as a playground, an escape from the walls of the
apartment, a moment of joy shared with the family and an opportunity to
make new friends. For youngsters, park is a place to ‘hang out’, a ludic space, a place for
practicing sports (athletic activities, basketball), for reading or just staring. “Taking children to
the park is the main reason for adults visiting the park” suggest Woolley Helen
(2005: 22). The majority of the adults prefer the “passive activity of watching
children play while socializing themselves—perhaps discussing the weather, or
school issues or other activities relating to the interests of their children”
24
(Woolley, 2005: 22). Woolley (2005: 23) draws the attention to the existence of the active
recreation (sport) and passive activities which can be “social— being with other people, meeting
friends, looking after children, conversing with strangers—and some are solitary —opportunities
for contemplation away from the hurly-burly of life or even an anonymous moment”.
Different groups of people within society exhibited different
patterns of use at different times of the day and week. The predominant
users of the park in the morning are the pensioners. Parents with
children, youngsters and adults show up by the middle day and in the
afternoon the number of the users reaches its maximum levels. The
retirement for the old people gives the possibility to spend more time
here:
“I come here every day because I am a pensioner and I don’t
have much to do. Sometimes I also came in the afternoon with my wife. If not, I met here
with other pensioners and we discuss. Today I am with the dog; it is my nephew’s dog. I
usually spend 2-3 hours per day; it depends on the weather (M/75/I5)”.
“I remember how I used to come when I was a child and make paper boats and let them
float on the water. How much fun we had! Later, when I was going out with my wife, I
was bringing her here because there were not so many places, you didn’t have where to
go”, “where else can I go? You don’t have any relaxing place to go in this city”
(M/75/I5).
From these confessions it might be observed that the people come here for different
reasons across the life time. The multiple possibilities of spending the time offered by the Central
Park of Cluj Napoca can to constitute an explaining reason for the popularity of the park.
Concerning the success of the parks, Jane Jacobs (1962: 113) admits that “for if the object of a
generalized bread-and-butter park is to attract as many different kinds of people, with as many
different schedules, interests, and purposes as possible, it is clear that the design of the park
should abet this generalization of patronage rather than work at cross-purpose to it.” The studied
park, has no restriction considering the users, no excluded categories because here, the public
space is shared between children, youngsters, parents, elders, tourist and people with disabilities.
The integration of the diverse communities and social tolerance in the public place
climate seems to be possible by “making sure that our urban parks, beaches, and heritages sites
remain public, in the sense of providing a place for everyone to relax, learn, and recreate; and
25
open do that we have places where interpersonal and intergroup cooperation and conflict can be
worked out in a safe and public forum” (Setha Low, 2005: 3).
Although there are multiple categories of people, the different values and interests
determined the creation of the micro communities and micro spaces. The popularity of the park
has its fluctuation because they are “volatile places”, “they tend to run to extremes of popularity
and unpopularity. Their behavior is far from simple. They can be delightful features of city
district, and economic assets to their surroundings as well, but pitifully few are. They can grow
more beloved and valuable with the years, but pitifully few show this staying power. There are
dozens of dispirited city vacuums called parks, eaten around with decay, little used, unloved”
(Jane Jacobs, 1962: 99). A profile of the Central Park concerning its popularity and success upon
the time is not easy to catch by I will try present the points of view of my respondents. Some
consider that, nowadays, the park is “more appreciated compared with the past especially
because of the increasing traffic and concourse” (F/21/I1). Others explain its continuous
popularity referring to economical implications and confess that “the lack of money, the fact that
you don’t spend anything here but you can have a good time might determine people to choose
the park” (N/68/I8). A graduation influenced by the season and by the day of the week is also
perceived: “the number of the population decreases during the months of vacation and,
consequently, the number of the users. In weekend it’s different, people come. During the
working days it seems to me that is not so much frequented” (F/32/I3).
Changing Space
Space produces serve as a tool of thought and of action
Lefebvre (1991: 26)
The park has a different meaning and importance for every user because “groups in a
society perceive, identify and define park problems by developing shared meanings and
interpretation of the issues” (Taylor, 1999: 420).The user has a critical eye because he constructs
hierarchies and evaluations for every element of physical space. Many times, these reflections
are made at an unconscious level and determine a certain positive or negative label. The
conscious is awoken when asked to verbalize or to take a position regarding a certain matter.
26
In his philosophical essay, “The timeless way of building” (1979), Christopher Alexander
asserts that “we must begin by understanding that every place is given its character by certain
patterns of events that keep on happening there. These patterns of events are always interlocked
with certain geometrical patterns in the space. Each building and each town is ultimately made
out of these patterns in the space, and out of nothing else: they are the atoms and molecules from
which a building or a town is made.” For him, the confluence of behavior and physical objects is
the primary datum of the built environment and the source of our experience with it.
The interviewed persons observed some of these new changes, their impact and also their
regret caused by the disappearance of some customs and micro spaces. Old people are the most
relevant segment that contributes to the creation of an image about the past by the help of their
memory. In this sense, some melancholic, regretful or satisfied attitudes were being obvious. The
complaints are also related to the new arrangement:
“I saw that they change the place of the bots. They destroyed its aspect. I understand that
the Chios is private property and they wanted to make the terrace but now, people can’t
stay any more relaxed near the lake and just watch because the boats are exactly in the
middle” (M/75/I5).
As the subject notices, the interconnection between private and public affect the
organization and the structure of the park. The private (the Chios restaurant) seem to gain against
the private because they were let to more the small house that rents the bouts in the middle of the
lake on the interior side. This house was always in the front of the Chios but now they
transformed that place in summer terrace in order to enlarge their business surface. Others see
that the cleaning process of the lake is not well done:
“I saw that now the lake is full of algae. One day they were picking the algae with fishing
net but the lake must be dragged” (M/75/I5).
Realizing the importance of this space for the park, the local authorities come with the
project of rehabilitation and modernization of the park. This project was detailed and announced
in June 2009 and it proposes the construction of a system of water filtration of the water from the
lake and so, this problem will be solved. Jane Jacobs’ (1962: 113, emphasis mine) reminds us
about some tendencies of popular public spaces. As far as she sees, “parks intensely used in
generalized public-yard fashion tend to have four elements in their design which I shall call
intricacy, centering, sun and enclosure.” In this sense, it might be added that the lake constitutes
the center of the park. Knowing the fact that people distribute themselves across the public space
27
according to their preferences, the lake area is much searched. This happens
because the sight is enchanting and because of the possibility to see more
people. In spring or autumn times, people search this area because it is very
sunny. This happens because generally, every visit to the park implies a
walk near the lake for seeing the ducks, the bouts or simply a mirror of water. Besides the
beautiful landscape perceived visually, the “musical” effect of the water offers “a huge
soundscape, from drips to babbling brooks” (Shaftoe, 2008: 62).
Fountain is another attractive water spot reminded by the users. Its constant popularity
comes from the fact that it is an inspired combination between art and nature. The first fountains
appeared in Rome and they had a fixed utilitarian role but at end of the
sixteenth century, the fountain as piece of art and element of decoration
become more and more popular. The fountain from the Central Park is a
modest one compared with the marble fountain of Italy ones, it is from
cement. It would be, maybe, pointless to have marble statues in this water
structure as far as in nowadays Romanian society “people are
undisciplined, they lack education, destroy everything” (M/74/I9).
However durable the fabric of a public space is, it will inevitably
deteriorate over time as a result of wear and tear and vandalism, unless it is regularly and
consistently maintained. The drains that surround the main alley that cuts throw the park
longitudinally are structures that have lost their functionality and admiration. Before these were a
point of attraction, as admits one of the interviewed:
“it was a wonderful place! Have you seen the drains that surround the main alley? There
was water. I think it come from the swimming pool that was near the Filimon Sarbu
Street. I remember how I used to come when I was a child and make paper boats and let
them float on the water. How much fun we had!” (M/75/I5).
These drains seem to be a very attractive and esthetically liked element of the park
because children are playing with the water and the visual effect is considerably improved.
The pavilion is also regarded with melancholy because elders miss the songs of the
fanfare:
“In the past, the fanfare sang here in the pavilion. There were more fanfares…the one
from Clujeana, the military one and the fanfare of the C.F.R. (the National Company of
Railway)” (M/74/I9).
28
Although this custom has been lost, the city hall tried in the last years to distribute their
financial resources for paying a fanfare to sing. In 2007, the Local Council (HCL nr. 399 from
26th of June 2007) decides the administration of 18.228 lei for fanfare concerts (“Forte
Fortissimo” Fanfare) that will sing from May to October, one our every
Sunday. One year later, in 2008, the allocated sum increases to 33.800 lei.
This money is sufficient for 26 concerts, the cost of a spectacle being of
1.300 lei. The fanfares that are invited to sing are the ones from Art
Institutions, Music Highschool and the Military Fanfare. Although the fanfares continue to sing
in the pavilion for a short period of time, none of my interviewed seemed to know about this
situation. From 4th of June 2005 this place is also used for marriages. This initiative of the Boc
mayor is much liked by the population and seen as a very inspired choice. Every year from the
first week of May, young couples marry here. The number of the marriages arrives sometimes at
one hundred per weekend and the yearly record was reached in 2007, when 2.250 couples get
married.
A very detailed archive of the changes can be presented by the daily users of the park.
Especially the old people, the pensioners, tend to come here every day, even two times per day:
“I come here every day in the morning and in the afternoon” (F/67/I7). The daily user knows
about all the physical changes of the place. He/she can tell the number and the position of the
missing benches: “from that alley near the lake they have taken about five benches” (F/67/I7),
the frequency of the cleaning processes (“In the last two or three months I didn’t see workers to
clean here…nothing from two or three months. Before, I saw them with the suction sweeper and
the women were swiping near the benches”(M/75/I5)). Other transformations, as the increase of
the bouts’ number (two new yellow boats) or the growing population of ducks (two old ducks
with their ducklings) has also been observed.
The case of the old Casino was a much debated problem. People draw the attention about
the sad situation in which this building is:
“You can see how awful the Casino looks! Nothing can be seen because of the wild
vegetation” (M/74/I9).
“Inside of the Casino it was a restaurant and outside it was a summer garden with many
chairs and it was very crowded in summer time” (M/68/I8).
29
“I was going to play football and I was coming back we were stopping here to drink a
bear. It was wonderful. Now the Casino is mess. The Chios restaurant was also open but I
preferred the Casino. Such a pity! It would be necessary to invest some money in it. I saw
that they begin to clean at the back of the building” (M/59/I10).
Space is managed by political and social forces. When one of
these forces abuses of its power, the other one intervenes. This
happened mainly in 2008 with the building of the old Casino. The local
authorities developed a project of reconstruction
and rethinking this
place. The aim was to create a functional building for the Philharmonic.
From seven years the Philharmonic has no fixed location, being
evacuated from the Auditorium Maximum of the Academic College of
the “Babes Bolyai” University. The auction for the “Philharmonic
Project” was gained by the Technical University of Cluj Napoca. The
plan of the new construction was proponing seven floors, an auditorium
with 1200 places, a subterranean garage, green rooms (foyers), dressing
rooms, halls, technical spaces and rehearsal halls. The problem becomes
interesting for the research because this project proposes the
transformation of the Casino into Philharmonic. The takes into
consideration the old building and adapts the plan for not destroying it:
“The new assembly will be formed of two parts: the construction of the
Casino and a new part of building that will be the concert hall” (Mircea
Petrina, the pro-rector of the Technical University).
The political forces and interests fail to complete this project as a consequence of the
social exercised power. The social opposition is represented by the some nongovernmental
organizations and by the public opinion expressed through a petition that managed to gather
1,500 signatures from the citizens. The person that gathered this considerable number of
signatures is called Schwarz Ciaba and he declared that his by his action he tried to sensitive the
local authorities because
“the people of Cluj (clujenii) which signed showed that they don’t want a new
construction in the Central Park and a the extinction of the old building, especially
because this plan of building implies the cutting down of 72 secular trees”. (Ziua de Cluj,
The Philharmonic integrated in the stadium)
30
He confessed that his actions will not stop till the mayor will speak with the citizens
about this project. The specialized voices that proved opposition were the organization in the
ecological domain and the Architecture’s Order from Romania (OAR). Political people
expressed also their opinion concerning this project:
“It is an interesting idea and I sustain this project because it will be great”. (PSD:
Alexandra Cordus)
“The Philharmonic must be done and this is a good fact, but not in the Central Park. The
restoration of the Casino is a good idea and this renewal will create a connection with the
past but only if the park is not affected. We have to make a concrete project and then we
will find more”. (UDMR: Csoma Botond, local councilman)
“I would sustain a project of this kind if no tree is cut down. The National Liberal Party
was against this project from the beginning because the park is not a location and a new
place must be found”. (PNL: Manuel Chira, local councilman)
This story ends with the refuse of the Regional Agency for Environment Protection to
give the advice note and so, the location of the Philharmonic is still an open theme. The Emil
Boc mayor (2008), sustains that: “Although the Philharmonic will not be constructed in the park,
I am thinking about a project of rehabilitation of that zone, the Casino with the wonderful terrace
and also the building of some bridges on the lake”. The ideas of the Emil Boc mayor seem to be
taken into consideration and so the year 2009 bring concrete and detailed descriptions of the
project. Virgil Pop (local politician, member of the National Liberal Party) argues that
“The building knows as the old casino will be rehabilitated for a multifunctional space
that will include expositions, receptions, presentations, events and marriages for special
demands. For the development of some annexes some minimal extensions in the east part
will be permitted but it would be better it these will not exist.”2
For sustaining the park’s vitality and for proving their implication and concern about the
greatest green space of the city, this place is often the location of some
special events. An exposition of epoch cars that were built between 1928
and 1948 was organized here. The Festival of Light is already popular
because it takes place in the first part of December and gives life to the
park. This festival presents juggleries with fire, musters of street art,
exposition of photography, ice sculptures and 8.000 of candles. A hot coup of tea is also
available for the passers. Actions of cleaning the park with volunteers from the highschool were
2
Groza, A. (2009) Mai mult verde in Parcul Central, Clujeanul, 481/23: 2
31
also proposed and realized by the local authorities. A special day celebrated here is the Child’s
Day, occasion that brings together children for drawing and playing.
As it could be seen, the park is much influenced by the transforming actions that
intervene across the time. But these transformations are always brought by social forces. When
experiencing this space, people create meanings and evaluations. They judge, analyze and
verbalize their concerns. Moreover, they contribute to the process of change and show opposition
when decisions are taken without asking them because, more that a physical presence, the park is
a social space, a space that receives life only because the users exist. Consequently, space
becomes a tool of thinking and action (Lefebvre, 1991), a socially constructed product.
Respecting Rules and Regulation
A crucial influence on whether people will use or avoid urban
public spaces is the degree to which they feel safe in them
(Shaftoe, 2008: 16)
Nowadays, the public spaces develop some patterns of use where only some categories of
users may have access. Some people are not always welcomed in public spaces – some users no
longer fulfill traditional normative expectations of what is considered to be appropriate behavior,
and some groups can be privileged over others. The problem of exclusion in not only a cause of
semi-privatization of public spaces, but also an aspect mediated by cultural expectations,
stereotypes or habits.
A public place should always be open to everybody. This openness contributes to the
development of some psychical and social dimensions. At a psychical level, the public space
determines self development because “people grow only by the processes of encountering the
unknown” (Sennett, 1986: 295). Confidence, escape from solitude, freedom and boredom might
be solved by feeling the public realm. Going further, it should be said that the psychological
states of mind are much connected with the social role of the public space. Public life determines
feelings of happiness because “people are happiest when there are other people around” (Dan
Burden). The feeling of togetherness, interaction and inclusion are also important dimensions of
the public life.
32
What happens when be exclude the other from a public space? Space is politically and
legally organized in order to express ideas about civic virtue and to differentiate between those
who are deserving and those who are regarded as marginal, fugitive or deviant. Public squares or
parks, intended as a manifestation of an egalitarian social order, may impose limits to these
undesirable elements of society. The public places are the only places where homeless can live
and act autonomously, they are homeless havens. Studying the “Homelessness and the street”
from Britain, Canada and the United States, Gerald Daly (1998: 121) affirms that “the street
serves a number of functions for homeless people. It is a place to socialize and to trade useful
information. Bartering is widespread, enabling people to satisfy their immediate needs without
having to use cash. They make arrangements for getting food (from soup kitchens and food
banks), clothing (from used clothing depots), finding a place to sleep or squat, or to locate
potential roommates with whom they can double up. Life for many is a struggle to gain, reclaim,
or to assert control over contested space, contending with others intent on excluding or ignoring
them.”
Although not very obvious, the Central Park has its own population of excluded
homeless. They have their own ‘dormitory’:
“they gather here because is more isolated. They sleep here and there on that bench under
the tree…here, everything can happen” (M/75/I5).
“if I were a mayor…I don’t know…I would put all the homeless to sweep the park. But
obligatory! They don’t have a place to work? Doesn’t matter! Go home and sleep! But
obviously they don’t have a home. There are difficult times, I know…but they have what
to drink and cigarettes to smoke” (M/75/I5).
The same interviewed sustains the homeless presence is one of the greatest problems of
the park. The image of the homeless world is a social construction, reflecting a stereotype of the
homeless individual and he is being associated with misery, crime, unsafe. They carry the stigma
of marginality and have the effect of containing or confining the unwanted ‘others’ of society
(Shields, 1991:3). Efforts to regulate the homeless or to expel them from the public property are
constantly thought but not the gendarmes neither the police can forbid their access to in the park
because they have the same right of using the public space. The security and surveillance aspect
in the park was a subject much developed by the old interviewed persons. Uniformed patrolling
is (police officers, gendarmes) are usually seen as fear-reducer and their presence offers a higher
degree of control and safety.
33
Their dissatisfaction comes from the fact that
“you rarely see a police officer of a gendarme that walks in the park.
Everything can happen here” (M/75/I5).
“You can see them that are so many in other places and here you can’t see
them. It is good for your safety to know that there is an authority that walks
up and down” (M/74/I9).
The fountain was reconstructed in 2006 because the hands of the statues
were stolen but now it needs again improvements because thieves destroyed it
again:
“As far as I can see they (the administration) don’t repair the hands of the
statues. The gangsters broke their hands again” (F/67/I7).
“Last summer I saw a group of young people climbed on the statues from the
fountains and one of them got off his trousers and the others made photos. I
reacted and I told them they are uneducated and they should not behave like
that in a public space but they answered rudely by telling me that is not my
business” (F/67/I11).
This place is also attractive for groups of teenagers that amuse themselves by
proving their courage and bullying character. The pavilion, situated near the fountain, is also a
place where ‘hooligans’ met and
“they are so mean, are making scandals and fight there. No normal person can enter in the
pavilion when it rains because you are afraid to go if the gangsters are there” (F/67/I7).
Other parts of the park are also affected by inadequate behavior. The
statue of Sigmund Toduta was stole in one night; approximately, five benches
were also stolen from the alley situated at the margin of the lake, near the road:
“They dig up the benches and take them home or at countryside. They
have no shame” (F/67/I7).
“That small fountain had a pitcher form bronze, but it was stolen and
they didn’t replace it. We have to make the statues and fountains from
cheap materials because people destroy and steal everything precious”
(M/74/I9).
An elder remembers that in the park existed another fountain between the
Octavian Goga and Liviu Rebreanu, on the place where now is installed an arrangement
from stones and some plants (as we can see in the image). The park had some special
places for the birds, some small houses but they were also destroyed. The one from the photo is
34
the last one and even this one is broken. It remained only the ones from the trees.
Spending some time in the park, I was eye witness when a poor iron collector took
advantage of the disorder around the Casino and stole some iron pieces that were part
of the building’s structure.
The lack of an organized surveillance was correlated with some problematic aspects of
the park as the hooliganism, vandalism, homeless establishment in the park, the entrance of the
bicycles, motorcycles and cars in the park. “Mayors and city council members, as well as park
managers and planners, are hard-pressed to mediate the conflicts that arise as park resources are
stretched thin and as neighborhoods deteriorate because of the inability of local government to
provide adequate services for all residents” (Setha Low, 2005: 11). The laws and the rules that
have to function in a park are not kept, many times are not even know. People keep coming with
the bicycle in the even the sign shows clearly that it is forbidden. Cars are also seen, but mostly
they enter for a determined reason (cleaning, maintenance and provision services). The presence
of a carriage with a horse that carries the children from one part of the park to the other one, on
Sundays, was also seen as inadequate by some persons: “What is the horse searching for in the
park, between people? It is ugly” (M/74/I9). The entrance of the dogs is also forbidden but the
rule is not kept in consideration, the dogs even find their amusement in the lake
The negative actions and behaviors that were already presented were explained by the
interviewed persons by the lack of surveillance services and by the poor education of the citizens
that “don’t have the seven years from home” and are not interested in cultivating real values and
preserving the park’s goods. Some commentators (Holland et al., 2007, Shaftoe, 2008) note that
if places are over-regulated in an oppressive manner they become less convivial and, indeed,
quite intimidating, even for people who are there perfectly legally. For avoiding this, the Italians
have brought new models of surveillance. These innovative approaches are applied in some
public spaces of the Italian cities. For instance, in Padua, retired people are hired on a part-time
basis to keep an eye on the urban parks. In Bologna this model of management is changed, the
surveillance is made by the volunteers who are recruited from the immigrant groups. Shaftoe
(2008: 35) suggests that “this latter approach achieves a double benefit of both providing a
reassuring official presence in public spaces and altering indigenous citizens’ stereotypical view
of immigrants as being potentially problematic”.
35
CONCLUSIONS
The analyze of the park as a public space has been done at a micro level. As a
consequence, the study is an exploratory one and it has the main aim to reveal particular and
detailed aspects about its evolution, perception and utilization. Having a model imposed by the
Romanian way of building parks, a model much likely to imitate the natural landscape (the
forest) the Central Park was mainly build from donations and charity money. Not even having a
clear plan, it was gradually thought and constructed. The implication of the local authorities in its
administration comes only later, and it is a remarkable redefinition and expansion of city
government’s responsibilities to its citizens. The process of increasing popularity was determined
by the various activities developed here but also by the need of socializing, interaction,
communication and integration. As far as space is interconnected with the economical, political
and social events from the society, its use is much influenced by the transformations at these
levels. The park has its own place in the plan of the city being a ‘must’, an aesthetical presence
and usually a pride of every respectable city. Its complexity is a social product, a result of almost
two hundred years of putting together ideas, intentions, needs and concrete restructuring plans.
Its long period of social production determined its heterotopic character because now, we this
space owns the hall-mark of the past (Chios, Casino, the fountain) and tries to create a cohesion
with the recently micro spaces created which lack an aesthetical and much inspired initiative (the
bar with the terrace, the springboard).
Although it is not a great urban place neither as structure, offering activities, nor as
beauty, it is probably the best known open space in the urban environment and attracted
constantly users. The park goers construct its identity and give value to this place. Especially in
summer time, people invade the place and no free bench is available. They see the park as a
place of escaping from the crowded and polluted city, a relaxing, silent, much pleasant place.
Their activity depends on age and interests. The user comes come to read, to walk, to take a
breath of fresh air, to play chess or basketball, to stare, to marry, to dream, to meet friends, to run
or they are just passing by. If it is more appreciated and successful compared with the past? That
is a debatable question. Some consider that the patterns of relaxation have changed a lot and
people prefer to watch television or stay in the front of the computer. Some see that the park is
36
more populated nowadays because going in the park implies no financial cost and much pleasant
experience. Others confess that the city doesn’t offer too many possibilities and in this context,
people have to be grateful with what they have.
Space is always a two dimensional concept. It implies its physical dimension given by the
process of production and it receives identity, meaning and values as a consequence of the
permanent process of perception, selection and classification. So, the park is a by-product of the
social production and social construction. In this idea, the present paper reflects the
interdependency between space and human, the way in which and the reasons why the Central
Park receives meaning and utility. The beauty and the essence of the place derive from the
human action and from its presence not from the aesthetics.
The park as a public space continues to reveal the structures of every-day politics in the
societies from which they arose. In the last years, it is under the attention of the local authorities
because many restructuring plans and rehabilitations have been done and for the further
development, new investments are planned. Their interest toward the park is a responsibility and
proves the degree of respect towards the citizens. In this sense, the park is a public institution
because it has a political character as a property but it has a cultural character as every open
space. The authorities have, on one hand, property rights and power of deciding the changes in
its structure and the rules that have to be followed, on the other side, government officials are
thought to represent the interests of all citizens. Sometimes they fail to accomplish that task, and
so, they are sanctioned by the public opinion, they are stopped by making great mistakes (the
case of the Philharmonic) by the citizens because this place belongs to everybody. Consequently,
the park is officially under the control of the state’s authorities but it can never manage it totally,
because this space was created for the public and so, they are also having the power of rejecting
or approving their decisions.
37
References
Allen, John (2006) Ambient power: Berlin’s Postsdamer Platz and the seductive logic of the
public spaces in Urban Studies, vol.43, no. 2, pp. 441-455
Bacon, Edmund (1975) Design of Cities, London, Thames Hudson
Beng Huat Chua, Edwards Norman, (1992), Public Space: Design, Use and Management,
Singapore, National University of Singapore
Bunschoten Raoul (2002), Public Space – Prototypes, London, Black Dog Publications Ltd
Carmona, Matthew, De Magalhães, Claudio, Hammond Leo (2008) Public Space: the
management Dimension, New York, Routledge
Carmona, M., T. Heath, T. Oc and S. Tiesdell (2003) Public Places, Urban Spaces: The
Dimensions of Urban Design, Oxford, Architectural Press
Carr Stephen, Francis Mark, Rivlin Leanne G., Stone Andrew M. (1992) Public space,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Chase J., Crawford M., Kalinski J. (1999) Everyday urbanism, New York: The Monacelli Press
Christopher Alexander, (1979), The timeless way of building, New York: Oxford University
Press
Daffara, Phillip (2008) Successful Public Places Australia’s online resource providing practical
information on how to create sustainable urban residential developments
http://yourdevelopment.org
Daly, Gerald (1998) Homelessness and the street: observations from Britain, Canada and the
United States, in Fyfe Nicholas R. (coord.), Images of the street, New York: Routledge,
110-128
Davis, Mike (1990) City of quartz. Fortress L.A., London: Verso
Dehaesse Michael, De Cauter Lieven (2008) Heteropia and the city, New York: Routledge
Holland, Caroline, Clark Andrew, Katz Jeanne, Peace Sheila (2007), Social interactions in
Urban Public Places, York: The Policy Press
Jacobs, Jane (1961) The death and life of great American cities, New York: Random House
Kaplan, Stephen, Kaplan Rachel (1982) Cognition and environment: Functioning in an
uncertain world. New York: Praeger.
Law, Seta M., Taplin Dana, Scheld Suzanne (2005) Rethinking urban parks and cultural
diversity, Austin: University of Texas Press
Low, Setha, Smith Neil (2006) The politics of public space, New York: Routledge
Lefebvre, Henri (1991) The Production of Space, Cambridge: Basil Blackwell
Lynch, Kevin (1960) The Image of the City, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
38
Lynch, Kevin (1972) What Time is this Place?, Cambridge: MIT Press
Mean, Melissa, Tims Charlie (2005) People make places: Growing the public life of cities,
www.demos.co.uk
Mumford, L. (1966) The City as History: Its origins, transformations and its prospects,
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Sennett, Richard (1977) The Fall of Public Man - On the Social Psychology of Capitalism, New
York, Alfred A. Knopf
Shaftoe, Henry (2008) Convivial Urban Spaces: Creating Effective Public Places, London:
Cromwell Press
Sorkin, M. (1992) Variations on a Theme Park. The new American city and the end of public
space, New York: Hill & Wang
The Council of Europe (1986) RECOMMENDATION No. R (86) 11 OF THE COMMITTEE OF
MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES ON URBAN OPEN SPACE,
https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&I
nstranetImage=551137&SecMode=1&DocId=74010&Usage=2 (last time consulted on
10th of May 2009)
Wendy, Sarkissian, Donald Perlgut (1986) The Community Participation Handbook, Sydney:
Impacts Press.
Whyte, H. William (1980) The social life of small urban spaces, Washington, DC: The
conservation Foundation
Whyte, H. William (1988) City: Rediscovering the Center, New York, Doubleday
Woolley, Helen (2005) Urban open spaces, New York: Spon Press
39