Abstract
This article addresses the term “systematization” as it was used in Romania during the 20th century. It investigates the sources of the term and the changes in its meaning and in the practice it named in each phase of its evolution: from its emergence at the turn of the 20th century and its adoption as a label for scientific urbanism during the interwar period, to its political instrumentalization and projection on large scales in spatial planning during the late socialist period, and its rejection in the post-socialist years. It shows how a term can radically change its connotations, ranging from desirable to destructive effects. It exposes the variable distance between systematization as a concept and systematization as a concrete practice. The scientific and disciplinary aspects of systematization are addressed, highlighting its relation to the fields of architecture and urbanism. Its political relevance as an instrument for the authoritarian and respectively totalitarian Romanian state is shown, serving their interest to act on the territory on a large scale. Housing is also addressed as a central subject of systematization. The aim of the article is, first, to draw a history that apprehends the entire evolution, from emergence to dismissal, of a term that marked Romanian planning for a century; and second, to show that beyond its local history, this term is relevant for understanding the more general relationship between scientificity and political instrumentalization in modern urbanism and architecture during the 20th century.
Highlights
When the Romanian communist regime fell in December 1989, “systematization” was one of the infamous notions that had to be abolished, a pejorative term designating the destruction of villages, mutilation of cities, and raz‐ ing of the center of the capital, Bucharest
Sfințescu fur‐ ther developed the Romanian case in comparison, not‐ ing that his superurbanism was more than what Italians called “bonificare integrală” or land improvement
It was different from the “organizing action” in Soviet Russia. His superurbanism was closer to the recent Reichsplannung in Germany, “with which we find many similarities,” sharing the aim of “rationally using the entire territory” (Sfințescu, 1934b, p. 98)
Summary
When the Romanian communist regime fell in December 1989, “systematization” was one of the infamous notions that had to be abolished, a pejorative term designating the destruction of villages, mutilation of cities, and raz‐ ing of the center of the capital, Bucharest. “systematization” is a neu‐ tral technical notion It refers to an act of organization that creates a rigorous order in the logic of systems— integral structures of hierarchized interdependent com‐ ponents. The research is mainly conducted on historical published materials—lexicons, school and professional manuals, articles, and books of the respective periods It dwells upon the writings of selected personalities with authoritative influence on urban theory and practice at their time, who articulated a reflection on the notion of systematization. Romanian history is related to larger contexts, to show the relevance of this case study for the wider story of the notions of scien‐ tificity in modern planning
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
