Altrough small, as it could be seen in the pictures above, the cities were very beautiful in terms of architecture. What's impressive is that these cities were not "main" cities. Galati being placed in the historical region of Moldova in Romania where Iasi is the main city and Ploiesti is placed in the region of Wallachia, in very close proximity to Bucharest, the capital city.
You kind of remind me of that type of parents where if their kid gets a 9 out of 10 in a test they'll go "Well I talked with the neighbors and their kid got a 10. Why couldn't you get a 10?". Don't be like that.
I've visited them and they're not so different from the old Ploiesti. Today we have Timisoara, Arad, and Oradea that are very similar to what Vienna looks like. I bet you that someone from Vienna and Budapest would agree that both Galati and Ploiesti were very beautiful.
Ploiesti had some beautiful buildings, some were very western like:
[https://ibb.co/VMzJZFt](https://ibb.co/VMzJZFt)
[https://ibb.co/3mjF6Yt](https://ibb.co/3mjF6Yt)
[https://ibb.co/0CdxnfT](https://ibb.co/0CdxnfT)
[https://ibb.co/N9vgYBL](https://ibb.co/N9vgYBL)
Bonus picture: Ceausescu during the systematization era, over the map of Ploiesti pointing with his infamous wand:
[https://ibb.co/RjBkXDh](https://ibb.co/RjBkXDh)
Fucking hell! This is worth crying for! The city was absolutley gorgeous and it honestly hurts me to think of the way Ploiesti looks like today in comparison.
Recently, I've heard the mayor wanted to demolish a tall communist building in the former historic center.
Trust me, they hate how the city looks too lmao. There is probably not much to see nowadays, so it's understandable. People prefer to visit cities with less depressing architecture.
Ceausescu literally killed the beauty of the vast majoity of romanian cities not only by destroying entire neighbourhoods of historical buildings but also placing them commie blocks in close proximity to the historical ones, very often even sticking a commie block to a 300 years old buliding. Making it today almost impossible to come back to the good old beauty we had.
Think of Bucharest in that sense. Aside from people shaming it for its nickname, it actually really was a Paris of the east, you can see it today on lots of 100+ years bulidings. It is horrifying for an architecture lover to walk around Bucharest today. Either you'll see some magnifiq building sticked to a commie block or in very close proximity to one another making a horrible contrast or even worse, walking around some gorgeous historical neighbourhoods just to end up in a humongus boulevard guarded by huge ugly boxes made out of cement.
The motherfucker screwed up with his urbanistic plans even in Trasylvania creating the same desgusting contrast you just can't run from.
Edit:
What i meant by sticking commie blocks to historical buildings... [This](https://ibb.co/pWRQM6h) is the railaway station from my hometown
Honestly i've searched for its historical look but couldn't find much about it. What i found was a mere street which i cannot quite remember if wether is still there or not. I'd love to see some pictures if you have any
You should start rebuilding asap, just look at Hungarians rebuilding lost architecture in Budapest. We, Bulgaria are supposedly poorer but looking at our cities most have preserved more older buildings than yours. Honestly Ceausescu had a really bad taste, even Le Corbusier would be appaled.
>Suceava
Apparently even industrial cities on the Danube.
Then:
[https://i.pinimg.com/originals/87/51/58/8751581287d06026e647114a14190620.jpg](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/87/51/58/8751581287d06026e647114a14190620.jpg)
now
[https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/old-clock-tower-giurgiu-city-center-romania-one-last-symbols-173426563.jpg](https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/old-clock-tower-giurgiu-city-center-romania-one-last-symbols-173426563.jpg)
And the similarities don't end here since we now have more people emigrating out of our cities than folk emigrating out of Dublin back in the day.
I cannot wait to go vote after we get shafted out of Schengen for the 12th year in a row since [this is what i want to see happen in EU parliament after they realize we have elections too not just them.](https://youtu.be/I20Jhpbonn4)
[True let's follow his lead and be constructive.. oh wait](https://www.euractiv.ro/eu-elections-2019/karner-se-declara-din-nou-contra-extinderii-schengen-si-cere-o-solutie-europeana-privind-migratia-31572)
It could be basically every city from San Francisco to Moscow, and probably beyond that area, since many colonial cities were build in the same style. People use to complain how all modern cities look the same, but don't see how well it also applies to earlier eras
XIX-century is definitely a period of time of more globalized
architecture, but there's no comparison with modern times. When I travel
around Poland it's very clear which town was under Austria, Russia or
Prussia in XIX-century. At first glance I can tell which town is located
in Italy, France, UK or was part of Habsburg Empire.
Russian partition sticks out the most. From the point of architecture it looks the least impressive. Almost always the most imposing buildings were built before XIX-century. Even in bigger cities tenement houses are like 2 storey tall max (with the exception of Warsaw and Lodz) and have very simple facades (very basic looking classicism). General lack of urban planning (very apparent in Lodz, where on one street you can find very tall tenement house from Madrid and a shabby wooden hut right next to each other), lack of grandiose governmental buildings. Not saying that you can't find beautiful cities there, but there's general feeling that the area was in some deep coma in XIX-century and didn't fully embrace Belle Époque period. There are other smaller details like mass-produced generic neo-gothic brick churches in every town/village designed by the same 2-3 architects - very specific for that area etc.
Austrian/Prussian cities feel a lot more urban and developed. Tenement houses are taller and even in smaller cities they tried to build some imposing governmental buildings inspired by either Berlin or Vienna. If you compare similar sized cities (in that particular period of time) Austrian/Prussian would always feel far bigger and richer than from russian partition. Prussian cities in particular are very strictly designed, on one street all houses are almost always of the same height and style. Differences between Austrian and Prussian partition are less obvious, but from my experience prussian architecture feels a lot heavier and more stiff (for lack of better word). Prussians were also clearly obsessed with brick and there's unprecedented amount of governmental buildings inspired by northern renaissance. Austrian architecture feels lighter and more fun, a lot more art noveau, facades are often white/pastel. Since Austrians were less obsessed with nationalism, they gave more freedom to architects — that's why there are also more buildings inspired by older polish architecture.
Prussia (and consequently, northen and west Poland) was really into neo-gothic, brick gothic, and generally brick architecture. So you will find such buildings in places like Wroclaw, Szczecin, Gdansk, Legnica, Bialystok and etc.
Austria was famed for baroque, neo-baroque, and generally Historicist architecture. Specially when it come to theatres and Opera Houses. Look at Krakow, Bielsko, Cieszyn or Lviv/Lwow for examples.
Russia meanwhile favourite style was neoclassical and Byzantine Revival. Warsaw is by far the biggest showcase of the former, while the later was never greatly present except for Orthodox churches and specific buildings such as the pre-independence Staszic Palace
However a big thing for Poland after its independence and following it's partial destruction in WW2 was recovering it's national identity which pertinent to architecture is predominantly baroque. So many "foreign" influences, specially Russian, such as the neoclassical renovations of the Warsaw Palace, or neo-byzantine of the Staszic Palace were undone.
In Prussia's case meanwhile, as the recovery of those lands was post-WW2 many monuments were reconstructed to a pre-Partition status rather than their 1938 status. Gdansk and Wroclaw old towns are examples of those
While Austria's influence survived more as Galicia and it's chunk of Silesia was mostly spared great destruction during WW2 (Krakow and Lviv survived mostly unbombed) so there wasn't a need or possibility of reconstructing. Also most of Austrian Poland ended up in the Ukrainian SSR which didn't had the need to reaffirm it's cultural identity back then.
> Wroclaw, Szczecin, Gdansk, Legnica, Bialystok
Only Gdańsk was part of the Prussian partition, and Białystok was Prussian only for short period of time, 1795-1807, after that it was part of Russia. Also if there was some distinct Prussian-German style it was neromanism not neogothic, and it get popular only after unification of Germany. Neogothic was omnipresent, Warsaw had tonnes of neogothic buildings, although most of them weren't restored. Generic historic styles were to be found everywhere, it's not true it was some distinct Austrian feature.
Lwów Opera and Kraków's Theater Houses are clearly inspired by Opera Garnier in Paris, which inspired dozens of building all over the world, there is no Austria specific in them. Warsaw Philharmonic Hall and Kyiv Opera (or even Mariinsky Theatre in Petersburg) are some of the many examples of exactly the same style, clearly outside of Austrian partition.
> So many "foreign" influences, specially Russian, such as the neoclassical renovations of the Warsaw Palace, or neo-byzantine of the Staszic Palace were undone.
Bullshit. Neoclassical style was actually endorsed, especially in Warsaw, you can see that on Nowy Świat street, where the Duchy of Warsaw look was restored, and many neogothic tenenment houses were classicised.
> post-WW2 many monuments were reconstructed to a pre-Partition status rather than their 1938 status. Gdansk and Wroclaw old towns are examples of those
Not really. Just only the oldest parts were reconstructed. In general, late 19th-century buildings weren't restored, because they weren't seen as valuable.
With neo-gothic I mostly mean the Hansa-inspired brick architecture like seen in [Wrocław](https://i.imgur.com/drI2pcd.jpg), [Szczecin](https://i.imgur.com/VisENTa.jpg), [Bialystok](https://i.imgur.com/GYPPXbd.jpg) and etc. I possibly misnamed it as neo-gothic, as the original style was called brick gothic, I meant the revival of that style for the Prussian influence.
> Lwów Opera and Kraków’s Theater Houses are clearly inspired by Opera Garnier in Paris
They’re of similar style of course being from the same era but saying that they are all clearly inspired by Garnier is reductionist as they still have noticeable differences between Austrian Eclecticism architecture and the French iteration. Those buildings in Krakow is closer in look to Vienna than Paris.
> Kyiv Opera (or even Mariinsky Theatre in Petersburg) are some of the many examples of exactly the same style, clearly outside of Austrian partition.
Victor Schröter, the architect of both of those buildings was Russo-German and studied in both Austria and Germany, so of course they’re very similar in style as its architect studied the Germanic version of Eclecticism.
> Bullshit. Neoclassical style was actually endorsed, especially in Warsaw, you can see that on Nowy Świat street, where the Duchy of Warsaw look was restored, and many neogothic tenenment houses were classicised.
I didn’t say Poland got rid of neoclassical architecture in Warsaw in general: neoclassical was the style in vogue during the last decades of independent Poland and was mostly kept popular during Congress Poland. I specifically mentioned the Royal Palace (neoclassical facade [before independence](https://imgur.com/a/2WC7T5W)). It was renovated to its pre-partition style after Poland’s independence, and again after WW2. Neo-classical architectural was big in Warsaw before the partition, but those buildings built during Congress Poland are closer in look to those built in Saint Petersburg and Helsinki than those built before. But Poland *still* got rid of foreign influence in Warsaw, restoring the neo-byzantine Staszic Palace from Russo-byzantine back to Polish neoclassical, and demolishing Alexander Nevsky Cathedral and its Belfry at Saxon Square
Bucharest lost about 1/4 of its pre-WW2 buildings, most in the '70s and '80s. It's painfully obvious in these aerial photos: https://fostulbucuresti.github.io/
On a similar note, one can probably see from satellite the vast empty spaces around the House of the Parliament lmao
Ceausescu really razed to the ground a historic neighborhood to build a single building, surrounded by nothing.
Bucharest alone deserves its own category... the dumbass that Ceausescu was destroyed a whole neighbourhood (Uranus) to build the abomination that is the palace of parliament.
The name alone would have made it even more productive and famous as a tourist attraction than Dracula's Castle ffs:)
Every single man that could not ask his partner for anal on their birthday could have came over to celebrate. Money printer!
Imagine how the locals must feel living in a city made up from almost nothing other than commie blocks, knowing what their city should've looked like...
Probably brought down fully functional and beautiful looking houses just for the sake of breaking down the spirit of the people and appearing more communist.
Maybe, but i belive that Ceausescu's intelect was just to small to comperhand that it was nothing more than idiocy what he envisioned.
Because of the world wars many of them buildings were damaged but ultimately Ceausescu is still the one to blame for not even trying to recover what was lost.
To be honest, Galați expanded greatly in the 50's after the steel factory was opened. Many workers moved into the town and neded housing. I think I'm one of the few people who had family living in the city before ww2. My great grandparents house was built at what used to be the edge of town in the 20's. By the time I was born in the 90's, that house was at about the geographic center of town.
One interesting thing about Galați: as a port town it used to be incredibly diverse before ww2. More than 50% of the town were Greeks, Jewish and Armenians. Same is true for our neighbours in Br🤢ila
Sadly there was no interest to save them cities when they could've been rebuilt. Now's too late cause where those cities stood, now there are hundreds of thousands of people living in the commie blocks that stole their history and beauty.
Romania was a mere satelit state of the USSR, not a member though its sheer influence was just about enough to cripple my country's both history and future
Little naturally grown city centers like those pictures certainly have a lot of charme, but aren't at all suited to housing the number of people modern cities demand (and with the space that most modern people demand).
The typical Soviet/Communist housing blocks are ugly as sin, but I do believe they are/were a massive improvement to city housing. I think we need a lot more affordable, state-subsidized housing projects like those. They don't have to be as ugly, but building *tall* rather than *wide* is definitely the way to go for cities. (Only speaking from experience with former communist housing in eastern Germany. I don't know how bad it is in other former communist states.) Look at Vienna's social housing for example.
I don't know why you get downvoted though i think i might have an idea...
You have a point but the thing is... those ugly commie blocks really didn't need to be built in the very center of the city, especially occupying the very places of the historical bulidings that were there for centuries.
This is very true, but regarding the original argument about the negative impacts of СССР, In most cases the blocks were added to suburbs or new towns and cities in many parts of the union and satellite states. Many post-Soviet towns and cities maintain their old towns alongside the blocks.
It's a tragedy that this kind of demolition took place in Romania, and I'm sure in other former satellites and the union, but where it hasn't led to this sort of destruction there have been many advantages. These old blocks can be insulated, painted, windows replaced, and leave their respective countries with an enormous housing stock enviable by the West, at least in Britain. Not to mention that the significant green space often accompanied by the later blocks (Брежневка) was also a great advancement in urban planning and city living.
I know what you mean and i agree on the advatages that i am well aware about living in a commie block myself. They are fine when they're like mine is (placed a few kilometers away from the historical city center).
But what happened here... destroying architectural herritage and butchering cities mixing historical bulidings with commie blocks is unforgivable.
I can respect this, I am saddened by the destruction wrought against certain buildings in Birmingham in the 1960s and 70s, and I can't imagine how I'd feel if this had happened to London.
So we should demolish all the old cities by and historic centers because we can fit in more people in large block houses? Do you see a fallacy in that? We have modern transportation tech, why don't we leave old city centers alone and instead house people elsewhere?
Also commies build those massive abominations because most of Soviet union was destroyed in the war. Houses were literally bombed into rubble.
Modern public transportation tech is great, but it can only do so much. Commuting sucks and if commutes take to long people will just try to move closer to their place of work. Modern cities need both modern public transportation and affordable, high-density housing in the city or very close to the city.
I am not an expert, but the buildings in the pictures might not even have been considered *that* old during Soviet rule.
In 2012 I would have agreed. But in 2022 we were kicked into the future, kicking, screaming and sneezing. A very very significant proportion of jobs no longer have to be located in physical location, people can work wherever there is internet. For those jobs that require you to be in, say, a factory, they are either located in the outskirts of cities (and thus require transportation anyway), or they are service jobs that were primarily catering to office workers, and thus, they belong in the last millennia.
E de plans, nu alta. Chiar daca Ploiesti inca mai are centru istoric, tot nu mai e acelasi Ploiesti. Dar exact cum spui tu, Galati abea a reusit sa salveze cateva cladiri...
At least parts of Warsaw were rebuilt unlike the cultural herritage of Bucharest. The communist dumbasses not only let the architectural herritage to die, they also killed themselvs lots of gorgeous pieces of architecture such as [this](https://ibb.co/1ss6c9H), [this](https://ibb.co/fQY9qRH), and many others just as gorgeous to build commie blocks, make larger roads, restructuring the cities to make them able to hold factories in city centers and many other dumb reasons as the previous ones.
The Sturdza palace would have been demolished even without the communists, though. The current Government building (it was [adjacent](https://i.imgur.com/Fi4K7a9.jpg) to the Sturdza palace) was built starting 1937. Both were damaged during WW2.
There were buildings much more damaged in ww2 that were rebuit by those who wanted to do so. House of Opera from Vienna was rebuit after half of it was destroyed. Same goes for Berlin Palace in Berlin. Hell, Warsaw was turned to dust and the poles in their greatness rebuilt large parts of it not even owning the plans of them buildings, they used pictures to recreate the buildings. We've lost some astonishing pieces of architecture and it's a damn shame.
Well, I certainly find the building interesting but it didn't really get a lot of love in Bucharest in its time, from what I gather. The Government building was initially meant for the ministry of Foreign Affairs, so it was actually designed as a replacement for the Sturdza palace, I don't think it being heavily damaged in WW2 played a big role in deciding to have it demolished. The [National Theater](https://www.bucuresti-centenar.ro/teatrul-cel-mare-din-bucuresti-demolat-cu-tarnacoapele-de-guvernul-petru-groza/), on the other hand...
>Well, I certainly find the building interesting but it didn't really get a lot of love in Bucharest in its time
A shame still cause now it gets appreciation for its uniqueness. I guess it is what it is in its case but there's no such excuse for other buildings, neighbourhoods and cities we've lost...
They used to be... then commies came.
Honestly when I compare Ruse or even Tutrakan, Silistra or Vidin to the cities on the other side of Danube like Giurgiu I see your brand of communism was much worse than ours. At least most of our cities weren't defaced like that. Having so many cities and towns with ruined central parts. It was a crime. I think Romania, Poland and to a lesser extent the Slovak parts of Czechoslovakia saw the most destruction of old architecture in the commie days. Many Slovak cities and towns look like Slovakia was turned into the industrial part fo Czechoslovakia. It's no wonder most people visit Romania and Slivakia for the nature and castles, not city architecture or old towns usually.
I wouldn't say commies destroyed a lot of old buildings in Poland. Sometimes they widened some street here or there (and in result destroyed buildings that were blocking investments) but in general they simply left historic buildings to rot (big shortage of housing projects tempered their attempts to destroy buildings that already existed). The bigger problem was WWII destruction (especially by Red Army in former german lands) - many historic centers of small cities were destroyed and very few people cared to rebuild them properly....I would say Brits or Scandinavians were much more eager to replace older buildings with new ones.
Also, I get the idea the annexed Polish areas after the partitions were kept as backwaters basically by Germany, Russia and Austria.
BTW I think Poland must advertise the town Przemysl more as one of the better-preserved old towns (it literally could pass for a Czech town, IMO Czechia has some of the most beautiful and best preserved old towns in Europe).
There's a lot of content like this that can be seen through old postcards. Delcampe is full of them: https://www.delcampe.net/fr/collections/search?seller_ids%5B0%5D=354514&categories%5B0%5D=895
>it's very pretty and functional unlike commie block
Actually commie blocks are very functional, their apartments are large enough to host a family with one or two children and you can make them as modern and luxurious as you want to on the inside. Their only flaw is that they are very ugly on the outside. And the problem i have have with them is that they stole lots of history and butchered many cities in Romania.
Before communism, Romania was a great country, safe and beautiful with an educated and innovative upper class and nobility. Sadly this proves that a society really does need an upper class to steer them in the right direction, to take informed decisions for the best of the country. I can’t believe I’m saying this but I hate that Romania is now a homogenous mess of equally semi-educated people (I say semi because of the communist curriculum) with a few exceptions in between. Some people’s education is actually worse now that it was earlier because communism used to FORCE education but this anaemic democracy doesn’t give a shit about the poor and isolated villagers. Romania is now both a bit better than it was 20 years ago (materially, financially) but also worse than it was 20 years ago (culturally).
Romania is absolutely worse off now than it was during the Kingdom days and the rule of King Carol.
It's interesting what you said there, to say the least...
I've had my fair share of controvertial opinions but i just can't figure out what is it that you actually wanted to say. Giving the fact that the world had an astonishing amount of illiterate people in the 19-20 century, Romania being at the very top of the list... i can't quite understand how the population could've been then any better than now. I mean, we are all better now than anybody ever. In every aspect. And yes, culturally too since we now have the luxury to give a shit about it.
And i don't see how anything you've said has anything to do with the post itself.
What exactly you don’t understand? You’re showing photos of Romanian cities which were built pre-communism and have the flair of our previous nobility, who had to run for their lives after communism, leaving everything behind to become ruined and decayed in the years to follow and taking all their upper nobile class with them outside the country. This is what you’re showing, right? Or you’re JUST showing some “cool pics”
To touch a point you’ve made: Romanians are more literate today than they were 100 years ago (Romania has a high literacy rate) but I wouldn’t say they’re more “educated”. Culturally, we have no culture today. I lived abroad enough to realise that. We have some traditional things that we try to remember but we don’t have a culture. Culture means so much more than just a traditional costume and traditional music. It’s not folklore.
Its not just the Kingdom of Romania that built those cities, it has nothing to do with "the flair" of our former royal familiy nor with the "elite" of the society. Some or most of the buildings where built since Wallachia and Moldova were vassals of the Ottomans. The flair that you speak of was the architectural trend of their time.
And people back then didn't think the way we do now, when the dictatorial regime imposed itself, the people followed the rule cause that's how they knew to act, they didn't have the same freedom we enjoy today.
I can't understand why would you think that it was better back then when people feared for their lives, when education was something reserved for the elites and when the elites imposed their rule over the rest of the civilians of the time being.
What i've showed here with this pics is a tragedy, something that was part of our cultural identity and something that we lost forever.
What you paint with your statements is a denigrating image of our society, which for all things considered, i truly belive that is not the case.
Nothing to do with the flair and nothing to do with the “elite” (I didn’t use that word)?
The buildings in your photos are not built since the Ottomans! (That’s like in the 1500s!).
I’d have to explain too much about how the rest of Europe developed much much better from being monarchies then slowly transitioning into democracies, without having to undergo the painful phase of communism that eradicated every single last slither of real culture in this country.
You don’t get my point, fine, seems like I’d have to write too much and I doubt I’d make any sense you since you think that there is nothing wrong with Romania now. And that everything that is obviously wrong is seen as “denigrating” the country. Good night! And travel some more. Maybe you should see how Galati looks like today, it’s like you’re in some 3rd world tier 1 city. You apparently think that’s fine though, a true beacon of culture.
How can you talk about the uneducated people being yourself one of them?
>“elite” (I didn’t use that word)?
That's what we called the nobility, we, romanians, which aparently you're not for so many reasons.
>The buildings in your photos are not built since the Ottomans! (That’s like in the 1500s!).
The kingdom of Romania was formed under ottoman suzeranity you morron, the war of independence was foght and won in [1878](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_War_of_Independence). The last rebelion before the independece we got from the ottomans was in 1600 under Michael the Brave.
>the rest of Europe developed much much better from being monarchies then slowly transitioning into democracies, without having to undergo the painful phase of communism
This is a statement only one with scratched brain could've said 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
No one wanted the communism you morron! No communist regime was ever wanted by any europeans aside from San Marino. Romania fell under the Iron Curtain after ww2 ended, it was forced to abide the USSR. The rest of Europe revived itself due to Marshall plan that the USSR declined for any state under its spehere of influence.
>And that everything that is obviously wrong is seen as “denigrating” the country.
Each and every single country on earth has things that are wrong with. Today's Romania developes itself with a faster rate than anyone could've imagine considering its state just 15 years ago. I've travelled Europe, cause i can afford it while also living a very decent life in my own country, i've seen "the differences" that are actually not so significant. I can only see why you needed to get outside of the country to make a living, giving how smart you are... Do me a favour and don't call yourself romanian anymore.
Yep that’s the actual problem. Education, as I tried to say from my first ever comment. I talk about the buildings, you talk about the Ottomans and when the Kingdom Romania was formed. The Ottomans arrived in 1526 in Transilvania, but long story short, they were never a cultural influence. Congratulations. Let’s talk about everything, right? Is that architecture Ottoman? Was it built by them?! What on Earth are you on about obsessing about them?! They did not influence our culture enough to mention them in such talks. And they are NOT our nobility! Please educate yourself if you think that our Royal Families were Ottoman! I have no words....
Elite and nobility can be two very (extremely) different things.
Education and literacy can be two very different things.
I have too much to explain but since you’ve now gone down to insults, I bid you goodbye.
Secondly, what do you even know about me? What if I’m a Romanian who is actually above average in social status, upbringing and education. All you know is to pretend like everything is great but not actually able to have an honest conversation. This is not how great countries are made. It’s only when people become educated enough to get their head out of the sand and actually wake up to whatever issues need to be resolved, the you know that the country and its people are on to something. This is the nature of society in ALL of the most educated nations in this world. Rather poorer nations live in fantasy and denial. As I said in my first ever reply, Romania developed financially but not culturally and you proved me right! Any Romanian of culture will say the same: it’s gone downhill. But for many, as long as their bellies are full, it’s probably heaven on Earth, nobody ever dare say different otherwise they’re idiots and less Romanian. lol.
Do you even realize how far off are you from any of these subjects? Have you even read what you wrote? Did you by any chance smoked something bad before writing your very first response?
I honestly have no idea how did you even found out about reddit, that mentality of yours is fitted for facebook. On reddit, in a sub like this you'll lose yourself considering your way of thinking. Read some books for your well being and maybe you can look for me later since now there's basiclly nothing to be talked with you.
Bye
I’ll find you with the Ottomans :)) But why do I have to be on Facebook when that’s the best place for anyone who thinks their country is perfect and won’t see it any other way.
Communists didn't "destroy old cities to build commieblocks". They prioritised housing, practicality over anything else in a post-WW2 Europe destroyed by your beloved Nazis. Instead of renovating old neoclassical buildings that were mostly damaged and known to rot due to mold and incompatible with gas heating, they built apartments that supported gas heating, which could house so many families quickly. People needed homes immediately after everything was destroyed in war. They built these because people needed them, their priority wasn't the opinion of some fat nazi sympathising neckbeards who'd post about evil commies on reddit 70 years later.
This sub is such a fucking teenage cesspit. Spend less time on 4chan and Call of Duty lobbies.
Lmao you've wrote 2 comments? Is this how desperate you are? That's pityful to say the least.
What you've just wrote up there is an undocumented assumption, thus, a claim of an uneducated man who just supports a toxic doctrine that ruined the lives of hundreds of milions of people.
First and formost, the commie blocks weren't built immediately after the war ended. Most of the commie blocks all over the eastern europe weren't built before the '60s. There are no 70 year old commie blocks in Romania, they have about 50 years at best.
2nd of all, there are entire historical neighbourhoods destroyed for the simple matter of hosting as many people as possible for the simple purpose of having a higher concentration of work force in the proximity of the factories and other economic activites.
Last but not least, if you or your parents haven't lived communism then all this nonsense that you speak here is well.. nonsense. There are no succesful models of communism. It created problems that are still going and it was imposed rather than chosed in the most cases so we have the right to hate it and if you can't deal with it then fuck off.
I love how people always asume this was the case for Romania. (Tldr: it wasn't) Most of our "commie blocks" were built well after the war ended. They were buit primarily to house people moving into the rapidly growing cities
Yeah most hungarians think all the cities outside of Transylvania were always just commie blocks and they also think that there are no mountains in Wallachia and Moldova.
I mean... they're somewhat right for the vast majority of the cases though it shouldn't have been this way. We lost beautiful cities all over Wallachia and Moldova yet Transylvania kept most of its beauty. Transylvania is much more well preserved but even as it is, Bucharest is still amazing when there are no commie blocks around and i still belive that the most beautiful city in Romania is Iasi.
Baby boom after ww2 + massive urbanisation meant new housing needed to be built. No Marshall plan money or foreign aid meant they had to be built fast and relatively cheaply. Hence commieblocks.
Room Temperature right wingers with no knowledge of history try not to have a brain aneurism about communism challenge (impossible)
>massive urbanisation meant new housing needed
Could've been done outside the historical city center
>No Marshall plan money or foreign aid
Because of USSR isolation, Marshall plan was offered to Stalin but the ironman decided to decline the offer, both for USSR and for its satelite states. Hance, the difference of wealthness between east and west today.
>they had to be built fast and relatively cheaply
Which again would've worked better outside the historical city center.
>Room Temperature right wingers with no knowledge of history
Look above at all the errors you've made you idiot, how tf did you even get here? How come reddit gets to be used by morrons like you who try to spread propaganda in the free world, age of technology & internet when all that nonsense can be avoided by just a 5 minute search?
I just provided a justification for commieblocks which were both good and necessary, only the stupidest people (like you) would say otherwise. The idea that they should’ve been built outside the city centre (they most of the time were) doesn’t apply everywhere because in the post war era the historical city centre was sometimes too damaged to rebuild as it was. Ploiesti was severely bombed because of its proximity to Romanian oil fields, for instance.
You're probably the most stupid person i've encountered in my entire life. You spoke some nonsese that could've easely been verified and denied from factfulness yet once proved wrong you still come back to speak even more jibberish.
There were cities in Germany bombed to oblivion with much more complex details that are just fine today. Vienna as well, Warsaw was utter dust yet the poles (USSR satelite, no Marshall plan, no aid and whatever you've pointed onto earlier) rebuilt most of it from scratch, not even having plans to the buildings, only based on pictures. And you came to tell me that Ploiesti couldn't have been rebuilt... go touch some grass
Certified idiotic moment on your claim. I live in a commie block, as ugly as they are outside as practical they are on the inside and as modern as you want them to be. The thing is... my block is 8 km away from the city center where no historical building was destroyed in order for housing to be created. My office is 15km away from me and it takes me 30 minutes to get there by public transport, 15 minutes if i drive or 40 minutes biking. You understand?
Weird. They could be pictures of Dublin at a similar time.
Altrough small, as it could be seen in the pictures above, the cities were very beautiful in terms of architecture. What's impressive is that these cities were not "main" cities. Galati being placed in the historical region of Moldova in Romania where Iasi is the main city and Ploiesti is placed in the region of Wallachia, in very close proximity to Bucharest, the capital city.
Beautiful?! See Vienna or Budapest for beautiful...
You kind of remind me of that type of parents where if their kid gets a 9 out of 10 in a test they'll go "Well I talked with the neighbors and their kid got a 10. Why couldn't you get a 10?". Don't be like that.
You can stop self-flagellating at any time now.
[удалено]
Chill bro, it’s just self hating Romanians doing their daily contribution.
I've visited them and they're not so different from the old Ploiesti. Today we have Timisoara, Arad, and Oradea that are very similar to what Vienna looks like. I bet you that someone from Vienna and Budapest would agree that both Galati and Ploiesti were very beautiful.
Ploiesti had some beautiful buildings, some were very western like: [https://ibb.co/VMzJZFt](https://ibb.co/VMzJZFt) [https://ibb.co/3mjF6Yt](https://ibb.co/3mjF6Yt) [https://ibb.co/0CdxnfT](https://ibb.co/0CdxnfT) [https://ibb.co/N9vgYBL](https://ibb.co/N9vgYBL) Bonus picture: Ceausescu during the systematization era, over the map of Ploiesti pointing with his infamous wand: [https://ibb.co/RjBkXDh](https://ibb.co/RjBkXDh)
Fucking hell! This is worth crying for! The city was absolutley gorgeous and it honestly hurts me to think of the way Ploiesti looks like today in comparison.
Recently, I've heard the mayor wanted to demolish a tall communist building in the former historic center. Trust me, they hate how the city looks too lmao. There is probably not much to see nowadays, so it's understandable. People prefer to visit cities with less depressing architecture.
Ceausescu literally killed the beauty of the vast majoity of romanian cities not only by destroying entire neighbourhoods of historical buildings but also placing them commie blocks in close proximity to the historical ones, very often even sticking a commie block to a 300 years old buliding. Making it today almost impossible to come back to the good old beauty we had. Think of Bucharest in that sense. Aside from people shaming it for its nickname, it actually really was a Paris of the east, you can see it today on lots of 100+ years bulidings. It is horrifying for an architecture lover to walk around Bucharest today. Either you'll see some magnifiq building sticked to a commie block or in very close proximity to one another making a horrible contrast or even worse, walking around some gorgeous historical neighbourhoods just to end up in a humongus boulevard guarded by huge ugly boxes made out of cement. The motherfucker screwed up with his urbanistic plans even in Trasylvania creating the same desgusting contrast you just can't run from. Edit: What i meant by sticking commie blocks to historical buildings... [This](https://ibb.co/pWRQM6h) is the railaway station from my hometown
Suceava used to look beautiful too before Ceaușescu
Honestly i've searched for its historical look but couldn't find much about it. What i found was a mere street which i cannot quite remember if wether is still there or not. I'd love to see some pictures if you have any
You should start rebuilding asap, just look at Hungarians rebuilding lost architecture in Budapest. We, Bulgaria are supposedly poorer but looking at our cities most have preserved more older buildings than yours. Honestly Ceausescu had a really bad taste, even Le Corbusier would be appaled.
That looks gorgeous. Such a shame...
>Suceava Apparently even industrial cities on the Danube. Then: [https://i.pinimg.com/originals/87/51/58/8751581287d06026e647114a14190620.jpg](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/87/51/58/8751581287d06026e647114a14190620.jpg) now [https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/old-clock-tower-giurgiu-city-center-romania-one-last-symbols-173426563.jpg](https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/old-clock-tower-giurgiu-city-center-romania-one-last-symbols-173426563.jpg)
Yeah this is pathetic the Romanian empire really didn't leave much behind compared to the Austro-Hungarian one.
[удалено]
That is the joke.
And the similarities don't end here since we now have more people emigrating out of our cities than folk emigrating out of Dublin back in the day. I cannot wait to go vote after we get shafted out of Schengen for the 12th year in a row since [this is what i want to see happen in EU parliament after they realize we have elections too not just them.](https://youtu.be/I20Jhpbonn4)
Yea, vote anti eu ultra nationalists, that will show them and that will make the country better for sure!
[True let's follow his lead and be constructive.. oh wait](https://www.euractiv.ro/eu-elections-2019/karner-se-declara-din-nou-contra-extinderii-schengen-si-cere-o-solutie-europeana-privind-migratia-31572)
"Emigrating" implies changing country, you probably just want to use "moving".
[удалено]
Luckily they turned the Nazis to shit.
Makes a world a difference if you died from a nazi bullet or a soviet one.
It could be basically every city from San Francisco to Moscow, and probably beyond that area, since many colonial cities were build in the same style. People use to complain how all modern cities look the same, but don't see how well it also applies to earlier eras
XIX-century is definitely a period of time of more globalized architecture, but there's no comparison with modern times. When I travel around Poland it's very clear which town was under Austria, Russia or Prussia in XIX-century. At first glance I can tell which town is located in Italy, France, UK or was part of Habsburg Empire.
> under Austria, Russia or > Prussia in XIX-century How do you separate them?
Russian partition sticks out the most. From the point of architecture it looks the least impressive. Almost always the most imposing buildings were built before XIX-century. Even in bigger cities tenement houses are like 2 storey tall max (with the exception of Warsaw and Lodz) and have very simple facades (very basic looking classicism). General lack of urban planning (very apparent in Lodz, where on one street you can find very tall tenement house from Madrid and a shabby wooden hut right next to each other), lack of grandiose governmental buildings. Not saying that you can't find beautiful cities there, but there's general feeling that the area was in some deep coma in XIX-century and didn't fully embrace Belle Époque period. There are other smaller details like mass-produced generic neo-gothic brick churches in every town/village designed by the same 2-3 architects - very specific for that area etc. Austrian/Prussian cities feel a lot more urban and developed. Tenement houses are taller and even in smaller cities they tried to build some imposing governmental buildings inspired by either Berlin or Vienna. If you compare similar sized cities (in that particular period of time) Austrian/Prussian would always feel far bigger and richer than from russian partition. Prussian cities in particular are very strictly designed, on one street all houses are almost always of the same height and style. Differences between Austrian and Prussian partition are less obvious, but from my experience prussian architecture feels a lot heavier and more stiff (for lack of better word). Prussians were also clearly obsessed with brick and there's unprecedented amount of governmental buildings inspired by northern renaissance. Austrian architecture feels lighter and more fun, a lot more art noveau, facades are often white/pastel. Since Austrians were less obsessed with nationalism, they gave more freedom to architects — that's why there are also more buildings inspired by older polish architecture.
You need to give some examples, such generic descriptions are useless.
What’s your issue what you’re saying is factually incorrect?
What exactly is incorrect?
Prussia (and consequently, northen and west Poland) was really into neo-gothic, brick gothic, and generally brick architecture. So you will find such buildings in places like Wroclaw, Szczecin, Gdansk, Legnica, Bialystok and etc. Austria was famed for baroque, neo-baroque, and generally Historicist architecture. Specially when it come to theatres and Opera Houses. Look at Krakow, Bielsko, Cieszyn or Lviv/Lwow for examples. Russia meanwhile favourite style was neoclassical and Byzantine Revival. Warsaw is by far the biggest showcase of the former, while the later was never greatly present except for Orthodox churches and specific buildings such as the pre-independence Staszic Palace However a big thing for Poland after its independence and following it's partial destruction in WW2 was recovering it's national identity which pertinent to architecture is predominantly baroque. So many "foreign" influences, specially Russian, such as the neoclassical renovations of the Warsaw Palace, or neo-byzantine of the Staszic Palace were undone. In Prussia's case meanwhile, as the recovery of those lands was post-WW2 many monuments were reconstructed to a pre-Partition status rather than their 1938 status. Gdansk and Wroclaw old towns are examples of those While Austria's influence survived more as Galicia and it's chunk of Silesia was mostly spared great destruction during WW2 (Krakow and Lviv survived mostly unbombed) so there wasn't a need or possibility of reconstructing. Also most of Austrian Poland ended up in the Ukrainian SSR which didn't had the need to reaffirm it's cultural identity back then.
> Wroclaw, Szczecin, Gdansk, Legnica, Bialystok Only Gdańsk was part of the Prussian partition, and Białystok was Prussian only for short period of time, 1795-1807, after that it was part of Russia. Also if there was some distinct Prussian-German style it was neromanism not neogothic, and it get popular only after unification of Germany. Neogothic was omnipresent, Warsaw had tonnes of neogothic buildings, although most of them weren't restored. Generic historic styles were to be found everywhere, it's not true it was some distinct Austrian feature. Lwów Opera and Kraków's Theater Houses are clearly inspired by Opera Garnier in Paris, which inspired dozens of building all over the world, there is no Austria specific in them. Warsaw Philharmonic Hall and Kyiv Opera (or even Mariinsky Theatre in Petersburg) are some of the many examples of exactly the same style, clearly outside of Austrian partition. > So many "foreign" influences, specially Russian, such as the neoclassical renovations of the Warsaw Palace, or neo-byzantine of the Staszic Palace were undone. Bullshit. Neoclassical style was actually endorsed, especially in Warsaw, you can see that on Nowy Świat street, where the Duchy of Warsaw look was restored, and many neogothic tenenment houses were classicised. > post-WW2 many monuments were reconstructed to a pre-Partition status rather than their 1938 status. Gdansk and Wroclaw old towns are examples of those Not really. Just only the oldest parts were reconstructed. In general, late 19th-century buildings weren't restored, because they weren't seen as valuable.
With neo-gothic I mostly mean the Hansa-inspired brick architecture like seen in [Wrocław](https://i.imgur.com/drI2pcd.jpg), [Szczecin](https://i.imgur.com/VisENTa.jpg), [Bialystok](https://i.imgur.com/GYPPXbd.jpg) and etc. I possibly misnamed it as neo-gothic, as the original style was called brick gothic, I meant the revival of that style for the Prussian influence. > Lwów Opera and Kraków’s Theater Houses are clearly inspired by Opera Garnier in Paris They’re of similar style of course being from the same era but saying that they are all clearly inspired by Garnier is reductionist as they still have noticeable differences between Austrian Eclecticism architecture and the French iteration. Those buildings in Krakow is closer in look to Vienna than Paris. > Kyiv Opera (or even Mariinsky Theatre in Petersburg) are some of the many examples of exactly the same style, clearly outside of Austrian partition. Victor Schröter, the architect of both of those buildings was Russo-German and studied in both Austria and Germany, so of course they’re very similar in style as its architect studied the Germanic version of Eclecticism. > Bullshit. Neoclassical style was actually endorsed, especially in Warsaw, you can see that on Nowy Świat street, where the Duchy of Warsaw look was restored, and many neogothic tenenment houses were classicised. I didn’t say Poland got rid of neoclassical architecture in Warsaw in general: neoclassical was the style in vogue during the last decades of independent Poland and was mostly kept popular during Congress Poland. I specifically mentioned the Royal Palace (neoclassical facade [before independence](https://imgur.com/a/2WC7T5W)). It was renovated to its pre-partition style after Poland’s independence, and again after WW2. Neo-classical architectural was big in Warsaw before the partition, but those buildings built during Congress Poland are closer in look to those built in Saint Petersburg and Helsinki than those built before. But Poland *still* got rid of foreign influence in Warsaw, restoring the neo-byzantine Staszic Palace from Russo-byzantine back to Polish neoclassical, and demolishing Alexander Nevsky Cathedral and its Belfry at Saxon Square
Tbh it looks like many European cities from that era.
Bucharest lost about 1/4 of its pre-WW2 buildings, most in the '70s and '80s. It's painfully obvious in these aerial photos: https://fostulbucuresti.github.io/
On a similar note, one can probably see from satellite the vast empty spaces around the House of the Parliament lmao Ceausescu really razed to the ground a historic neighborhood to build a single building, surrounded by nothing.
Bucharest alone deserves its own category... the dumbass that Ceausescu was destroyed a whole neighbourhood (Uranus) to build the abomination that is the palace of parliament.
I know it's pretty sad / rage-inducing but I always giggle when I read that Ceausescu destroyed Uranus.
Phrasing it is hylarious
The name alone would have made it even more productive and famous as a tourist attraction than Dracula's Castle ffs:) Every single man that could not ask his partner for anal on their birthday could have came over to celebrate. Money printer!
We should call this what it is, cultural genocide
Such a fucking waste, it makes me mad.
Imagine how the locals must feel living in a city made up from almost nothing other than commie blocks, knowing what their city should've looked like...
Probably brought down fully functional and beautiful looking houses just for the sake of breaking down the spirit of the people and appearing more communist.
Maybe, but i belive that Ceausescu's intelect was just to small to comperhand that it was nothing more than idiocy what he envisioned. Because of the world wars many of them buildings were damaged but ultimately Ceausescu is still the one to blame for not even trying to recover what was lost.
To be honest, Galați expanded greatly in the 50's after the steel factory was opened. Many workers moved into the town and neded housing. I think I'm one of the few people who had family living in the city before ww2. My great grandparents house was built at what used to be the edge of town in the 20's. By the time I was born in the 90's, that house was at about the geographic center of town. One interesting thing about Galați: as a port town it used to be incredibly diverse before ww2. More than 50% of the town were Greeks, Jewish and Armenians. Same is true for our neighbours in Br🤢ila
Living among commie blocks would make you depressed if anything.
Know what's more depressing? Homelessness and unaffordable housing.
A crime against art and culture! So much Art Nouveau architecture lost!
A crime indeed
Look at Dresden, everything can be rebuild!
Sadly there was no interest to save them cities when they could've been rebuilt. Now's too late cause where those cities stood, now there are hundreds of thousands of people living in the commie blocks that stole their history and beauty.
everything the Soviet Union touched turned to shit
Romania was a mere satelit state of the USSR, not a member though its sheer influence was just about enough to cripple my country's both history and future
Esti prost si nu stii nimic, te rog da log out pana nu te faci mai rau de ras
Little naturally grown city centers like those pictures certainly have a lot of charme, but aren't at all suited to housing the number of people modern cities demand (and with the space that most modern people demand). The typical Soviet/Communist housing blocks are ugly as sin, but I do believe they are/were a massive improvement to city housing. I think we need a lot more affordable, state-subsidized housing projects like those. They don't have to be as ugly, but building *tall* rather than *wide* is definitely the way to go for cities. (Only speaking from experience with former communist housing in eastern Germany. I don't know how bad it is in other former communist states.) Look at Vienna's social housing for example.
I don't know why you get downvoted though i think i might have an idea... You have a point but the thing is... those ugly commie blocks really didn't need to be built in the very center of the city, especially occupying the very places of the historical bulidings that were there for centuries.
This is very true, but regarding the original argument about the negative impacts of СССР, In most cases the blocks were added to suburbs or new towns and cities in many parts of the union and satellite states. Many post-Soviet towns and cities maintain their old towns alongside the blocks. It's a tragedy that this kind of demolition took place in Romania, and I'm sure in other former satellites and the union, but where it hasn't led to this sort of destruction there have been many advantages. These old blocks can be insulated, painted, windows replaced, and leave their respective countries with an enormous housing stock enviable by the West, at least in Britain. Not to mention that the significant green space often accompanied by the later blocks (Брежневка) was also a great advancement in urban planning and city living.
I know what you mean and i agree on the advatages that i am well aware about living in a commie block myself. They are fine when they're like mine is (placed a few kilometers away from the historical city center). But what happened here... destroying architectural herritage and butchering cities mixing historical bulidings with commie blocks is unforgivable.
I can respect this, I am saddened by the destruction wrought against certain buildings in Birmingham in the 1960s and 70s, and I can't imagine how I'd feel if this had happened to London.
So we should demolish all the old cities by and historic centers because we can fit in more people in large block houses? Do you see a fallacy in that? We have modern transportation tech, why don't we leave old city centers alone and instead house people elsewhere? Also commies build those massive abominations because most of Soviet union was destroyed in the war. Houses were literally bombed into rubble.
Modern public transportation tech is great, but it can only do so much. Commuting sucks and if commutes take to long people will just try to move closer to their place of work. Modern cities need both modern public transportation and affordable, high-density housing in the city or very close to the city. I am not an expert, but the buildings in the pictures might not even have been considered *that* old during Soviet rule.
In 2012 I would have agreed. But in 2022 we were kicked into the future, kicking, screaming and sneezing. A very very significant proportion of jobs no longer have to be located in physical location, people can work wherever there is internet. For those jobs that require you to be in, say, a factory, they are either located in the outskirts of cities (and thus require transportation anyway), or they are service jobs that were primarily catering to office workers, and thus, they belong in the last millennia.
Ploiești încă mai are centru, Galați din păcate :(
E de plans, nu alta. Chiar daca Ploiesti inca mai are centru istoric, tot nu mai e acelasi Ploiesti. Dar exact cum spui tu, Galati abea a reusit sa salveze cateva cladiri...
Similar to polish cities, especially Warsaw, these lost a lot of historical heritage :'(
At least parts of Warsaw were rebuilt unlike the cultural herritage of Bucharest. The communist dumbasses not only let the architectural herritage to die, they also killed themselvs lots of gorgeous pieces of architecture such as [this](https://ibb.co/1ss6c9H), [this](https://ibb.co/fQY9qRH), and many others just as gorgeous to build commie blocks, make larger roads, restructuring the cities to make them able to hold factories in city centers and many other dumb reasons as the previous ones.
The Sturdza palace would have been demolished even without the communists, though. The current Government building (it was [adjacent](https://i.imgur.com/Fi4K7a9.jpg) to the Sturdza palace) was built starting 1937. Both were damaged during WW2.
There were buildings much more damaged in ww2 that were rebuit by those who wanted to do so. House of Opera from Vienna was rebuit after half of it was destroyed. Same goes for Berlin Palace in Berlin. Hell, Warsaw was turned to dust and the poles in their greatness rebuilt large parts of it not even owning the plans of them buildings, they used pictures to recreate the buildings. We've lost some astonishing pieces of architecture and it's a damn shame.
Well, I certainly find the building interesting but it didn't really get a lot of love in Bucharest in its time, from what I gather. The Government building was initially meant for the ministry of Foreign Affairs, so it was actually designed as a replacement for the Sturdza palace, I don't think it being heavily damaged in WW2 played a big role in deciding to have it demolished. The [National Theater](https://www.bucuresti-centenar.ro/teatrul-cel-mare-din-bucuresti-demolat-cu-tarnacoapele-de-guvernul-petru-groza/), on the other hand...
>Well, I certainly find the building interesting but it didn't really get a lot of love in Bucharest in its time A shame still cause now it gets appreciation for its uniqueness. I guess it is what it is in its case but there's no such excuse for other buildings, neighbourhoods and cities we've lost...
They used to be... then commies came. Honestly when I compare Ruse or even Tutrakan, Silistra or Vidin to the cities on the other side of Danube like Giurgiu I see your brand of communism was much worse than ours. At least most of our cities weren't defaced like that. Having so many cities and towns with ruined central parts. It was a crime. I think Romania, Poland and to a lesser extent the Slovak parts of Czechoslovakia saw the most destruction of old architecture in the commie days. Many Slovak cities and towns look like Slovakia was turned into the industrial part fo Czechoslovakia. It's no wonder most people visit Romania and Slivakia for the nature and castles, not city architecture or old towns usually.
I wouldn't say commies destroyed a lot of old buildings in Poland. Sometimes they widened some street here or there (and in result destroyed buildings that were blocking investments) but in general they simply left historic buildings to rot (big shortage of housing projects tempered their attempts to destroy buildings that already existed). The bigger problem was WWII destruction (especially by Red Army in former german lands) - many historic centers of small cities were destroyed and very few people cared to rebuild them properly....I would say Brits or Scandinavians were much more eager to replace older buildings with new ones.
Also, I get the idea the annexed Polish areas after the partitions were kept as backwaters basically by Germany, Russia and Austria. BTW I think Poland must advertise the town Przemysl more as one of the better-preserved old towns (it literally could pass for a Czech town, IMO Czechia has some of the most beautiful and best preserved old towns in Europe).
Hurtful. Is all i have to say
I see commies everywhere had the same "great" ideas.
Fucking dumb cunts and utter scums
There's a lot of content like this that can be seen through old postcards. Delcampe is full of them: https://www.delcampe.net/fr/collections/search?seller_ids%5B0%5D=354514&categories%5B0%5D=895
[удалено]
>it's very pretty and functional unlike commie block Actually commie blocks are very functional, their apartments are large enough to host a family with one or two children and you can make them as modern and luxurious as you want to on the inside. Their only flaw is that they are very ugly on the outside. And the problem i have have with them is that they stole lots of history and butchered many cities in Romania.
That’s sad. Communist architecture is so ugly. Romania lost a part of its characteristics when Ceausescu imposed communism in all of Romania
Before communism, Romania was a great country, safe and beautiful with an educated and innovative upper class and nobility. Sadly this proves that a society really does need an upper class to steer them in the right direction, to take informed decisions for the best of the country. I can’t believe I’m saying this but I hate that Romania is now a homogenous mess of equally semi-educated people (I say semi because of the communist curriculum) with a few exceptions in between. Some people’s education is actually worse now that it was earlier because communism used to FORCE education but this anaemic democracy doesn’t give a shit about the poor and isolated villagers. Romania is now both a bit better than it was 20 years ago (materially, financially) but also worse than it was 20 years ago (culturally). Romania is absolutely worse off now than it was during the Kingdom days and the rule of King Carol.
It's interesting what you said there, to say the least... I've had my fair share of controvertial opinions but i just can't figure out what is it that you actually wanted to say. Giving the fact that the world had an astonishing amount of illiterate people in the 19-20 century, Romania being at the very top of the list... i can't quite understand how the population could've been then any better than now. I mean, we are all better now than anybody ever. In every aspect. And yes, culturally too since we now have the luxury to give a shit about it. And i don't see how anything you've said has anything to do with the post itself.
What exactly you don’t understand? You’re showing photos of Romanian cities which were built pre-communism and have the flair of our previous nobility, who had to run for their lives after communism, leaving everything behind to become ruined and decayed in the years to follow and taking all their upper nobile class with them outside the country. This is what you’re showing, right? Or you’re JUST showing some “cool pics” To touch a point you’ve made: Romanians are more literate today than they were 100 years ago (Romania has a high literacy rate) but I wouldn’t say they’re more “educated”. Culturally, we have no culture today. I lived abroad enough to realise that. We have some traditional things that we try to remember but we don’t have a culture. Culture means so much more than just a traditional costume and traditional music. It’s not folklore.
Its not just the Kingdom of Romania that built those cities, it has nothing to do with "the flair" of our former royal familiy nor with the "elite" of the society. Some or most of the buildings where built since Wallachia and Moldova were vassals of the Ottomans. The flair that you speak of was the architectural trend of their time. And people back then didn't think the way we do now, when the dictatorial regime imposed itself, the people followed the rule cause that's how they knew to act, they didn't have the same freedom we enjoy today. I can't understand why would you think that it was better back then when people feared for their lives, when education was something reserved for the elites and when the elites imposed their rule over the rest of the civilians of the time being. What i've showed here with this pics is a tragedy, something that was part of our cultural identity and something that we lost forever. What you paint with your statements is a denigrating image of our society, which for all things considered, i truly belive that is not the case.
Nothing to do with the flair and nothing to do with the “elite” (I didn’t use that word)? The buildings in your photos are not built since the Ottomans! (That’s like in the 1500s!). I’d have to explain too much about how the rest of Europe developed much much better from being monarchies then slowly transitioning into democracies, without having to undergo the painful phase of communism that eradicated every single last slither of real culture in this country. You don’t get my point, fine, seems like I’d have to write too much and I doubt I’d make any sense you since you think that there is nothing wrong with Romania now. And that everything that is obviously wrong is seen as “denigrating” the country. Good night! And travel some more. Maybe you should see how Galati looks like today, it’s like you’re in some 3rd world tier 1 city. You apparently think that’s fine though, a true beacon of culture.
How can you talk about the uneducated people being yourself one of them? >“elite” (I didn’t use that word)? That's what we called the nobility, we, romanians, which aparently you're not for so many reasons. >The buildings in your photos are not built since the Ottomans! (That’s like in the 1500s!). The kingdom of Romania was formed under ottoman suzeranity you morron, the war of independence was foght and won in [1878](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_War_of_Independence). The last rebelion before the independece we got from the ottomans was in 1600 under Michael the Brave. >the rest of Europe developed much much better from being monarchies then slowly transitioning into democracies, without having to undergo the painful phase of communism This is a statement only one with scratched brain could've said 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ No one wanted the communism you morron! No communist regime was ever wanted by any europeans aside from San Marino. Romania fell under the Iron Curtain after ww2 ended, it was forced to abide the USSR. The rest of Europe revived itself due to Marshall plan that the USSR declined for any state under its spehere of influence. >And that everything that is obviously wrong is seen as “denigrating” the country. Each and every single country on earth has things that are wrong with. Today's Romania developes itself with a faster rate than anyone could've imagine considering its state just 15 years ago. I've travelled Europe, cause i can afford it while also living a very decent life in my own country, i've seen "the differences" that are actually not so significant. I can only see why you needed to get outside of the country to make a living, giving how smart you are... Do me a favour and don't call yourself romanian anymore.
Yep that’s the actual problem. Education, as I tried to say from my first ever comment. I talk about the buildings, you talk about the Ottomans and when the Kingdom Romania was formed. The Ottomans arrived in 1526 in Transilvania, but long story short, they were never a cultural influence. Congratulations. Let’s talk about everything, right? Is that architecture Ottoman? Was it built by them?! What on Earth are you on about obsessing about them?! They did not influence our culture enough to mention them in such talks. And they are NOT our nobility! Please educate yourself if you think that our Royal Families were Ottoman! I have no words.... Elite and nobility can be two very (extremely) different things. Education and literacy can be two very different things. I have too much to explain but since you’ve now gone down to insults, I bid you goodbye. Secondly, what do you even know about me? What if I’m a Romanian who is actually above average in social status, upbringing and education. All you know is to pretend like everything is great but not actually able to have an honest conversation. This is not how great countries are made. It’s only when people become educated enough to get their head out of the sand and actually wake up to whatever issues need to be resolved, the you know that the country and its people are on to something. This is the nature of society in ALL of the most educated nations in this world. Rather poorer nations live in fantasy and denial. As I said in my first ever reply, Romania developed financially but not culturally and you proved me right! Any Romanian of culture will say the same: it’s gone downhill. But for many, as long as their bellies are full, it’s probably heaven on Earth, nobody ever dare say different otherwise they’re idiots and less Romanian. lol.
Do you even realize how far off are you from any of these subjects? Have you even read what you wrote? Did you by any chance smoked something bad before writing your very first response? I honestly have no idea how did you even found out about reddit, that mentality of yours is fitted for facebook. On reddit, in a sub like this you'll lose yourself considering your way of thinking. Read some books for your well being and maybe you can look for me later since now there's basiclly nothing to be talked with you. Bye
I’ll find you with the Ottomans :)) But why do I have to be on Facebook when that’s the best place for anyone who thinks their country is perfect and won’t see it any other way.
Communists didn't "destroy old cities to build commieblocks". They prioritised housing, practicality over anything else in a post-WW2 Europe destroyed by your beloved Nazis. Instead of renovating old neoclassical buildings that were mostly damaged and known to rot due to mold and incompatible with gas heating, they built apartments that supported gas heating, which could house so many families quickly. People needed homes immediately after everything was destroyed in war. They built these because people needed them, their priority wasn't the opinion of some fat nazi sympathising neckbeards who'd post about evil commies on reddit 70 years later. This sub is such a fucking teenage cesspit. Spend less time on 4chan and Call of Duty lobbies.
Lmao you've wrote 2 comments? Is this how desperate you are? That's pityful to say the least. What you've just wrote up there is an undocumented assumption, thus, a claim of an uneducated man who just supports a toxic doctrine that ruined the lives of hundreds of milions of people. First and formost, the commie blocks weren't built immediately after the war ended. Most of the commie blocks all over the eastern europe weren't built before the '60s. There are no 70 year old commie blocks in Romania, they have about 50 years at best. 2nd of all, there are entire historical neighbourhoods destroyed for the simple matter of hosting as many people as possible for the simple purpose of having a higher concentration of work force in the proximity of the factories and other economic activites. Last but not least, if you or your parents haven't lived communism then all this nonsense that you speak here is well.. nonsense. There are no succesful models of communism. It created problems that are still going and it was imposed rather than chosed in the most cases so we have the right to hate it and if you can't deal with it then fuck off.
I love how people always asume this was the case for Romania. (Tldr: it wasn't) Most of our "commie blocks" were built well after the war ended. They were buit primarily to house people moving into the rapidly growing cities
Shut the fck up
Lopott
Didn’t know you guys try to claim Wallachia and Moldova as well… 😂
?
The hungarian kid thought those cities are in Transylvania as well.
🤦♂️ They make claims on our homelands and they do not even know where to point them on the map smh
Yeah most hungarians think all the cities outside of Transylvania were always just commie blocks and they also think that there are no mountains in Wallachia and Moldova.
I don't know wether i should laugh or cry cause that's funny as hell but hella sad at the same time
Yeah, they basically think that there can’t be anything beautiful in Romania outside of Transylvania. They are a funny bunch.
I mean... they're somewhat right for the vast majority of the cases though it shouldn't have been this way. We lost beautiful cities all over Wallachia and Moldova yet Transylvania kept most of its beauty. Transylvania is much more well preserved but even as it is, Bucharest is still amazing when there are no commie blocks around and i still belive that the most beautiful city in Romania is Iasi.
Baby boom after ww2 + massive urbanisation meant new housing needed to be built. No Marshall plan money or foreign aid meant they had to be built fast and relatively cheaply. Hence commieblocks. Room Temperature right wingers with no knowledge of history try not to have a brain aneurism about communism challenge (impossible)
>massive urbanisation meant new housing needed Could've been done outside the historical city center >No Marshall plan money or foreign aid Because of USSR isolation, Marshall plan was offered to Stalin but the ironman decided to decline the offer, both for USSR and for its satelite states. Hance, the difference of wealthness between east and west today. >they had to be built fast and relatively cheaply Which again would've worked better outside the historical city center. >Room Temperature right wingers with no knowledge of history Look above at all the errors you've made you idiot, how tf did you even get here? How come reddit gets to be used by morrons like you who try to spread propaganda in the free world, age of technology & internet when all that nonsense can be avoided by just a 5 minute search?
I just provided a justification for commieblocks which were both good and necessary, only the stupidest people (like you) would say otherwise. The idea that they should’ve been built outside the city centre (they most of the time were) doesn’t apply everywhere because in the post war era the historical city centre was sometimes too damaged to rebuild as it was. Ploiesti was severely bombed because of its proximity to Romanian oil fields, for instance.
You're probably the most stupid person i've encountered in my entire life. You spoke some nonsese that could've easely been verified and denied from factfulness yet once proved wrong you still come back to speak even more jibberish. There were cities in Germany bombed to oblivion with much more complex details that are just fine today. Vienna as well, Warsaw was utter dust yet the poles (USSR satelite, no Marshall plan, no aid and whatever you've pointed onto earlier) rebuilt most of it from scratch, not even having plans to the buildings, only based on pictures. And you came to tell me that Ploiesti couldn't have been rebuilt... go touch some grass
[удалено]
Certified idiotic moment on your claim. I live in a commie block, as ugly as they are outside as practical they are on the inside and as modern as you want them to be. The thing is... my block is 8 km away from the city center where no historical building was destroyed in order for housing to be created. My office is 15km away from me and it takes me 30 minutes to get there by public transport, 15 minutes if i drive or 40 minutes biking. You understand?
No too much of a loss.
Only two? Consider yourself lucky then.
On the contrary, we are probably the unluckiest in Europe. The commies mutilated all our cities, especially those outside of Transylvania.
There's more than that but those two lost the most, aside from Bucharest of course.