Architecture of Communists. A feminist perception of the domestic sphere in Communist Romania

ABSTRACT

The thesis “Architecture of Communists. A Feminist Perception of the Domestic Sphere in Communist Romania” is primarily highlighting the influence of the communist era and its impact on architecture in Romania. In addition, it aims to argue the woman condition inside the domestic sphere and inside the familial circle. The main questions to be answered to in this thesis are: How did it feel for women to face the challenge of the communist transformation in relation to domestic sphere? How the notion of ‘family’ was suddenly perceived by communists? Had the housing ‘type projects’ been a communist limitation for architects?

One of the main goals of my thesis is to discover a less known aspect of communism, mostly illustrating the familial and women positions influenced by the changing domestic architecture imposed in the past by a communist society I will present and argue the unobserved women’s needs and how they were hidden behind the ‘offer’ of equal rights with men. During communism, women faced lots of changes, the major one being the necessity to adapt to a new life-style (rural - urban), because the communist regime was mainly based on this transformation: from homes as domestic spaces to a mass urbanism.

Furthermore, I will critically argue the imposition of ‘type projects’ in housing construction, in order to develop an immediate national urbanisation. From my point of view, this action had severe consequences on architects and their individualistic design thinking, some of them leaving ‘scars’ until the present. My arguments will be supported in the same time by public opinions and interactions.

INTRODUCTION

Why communism? As I stated in my stasis, the reason I chose communist architecture in Romania is because I am passionate about the communist history and I want to illustrate, coming up with arguments, the inherited brutalist architectural style, the women’s hard capacity to adapt to a new life-style and the nowadays habits acquired from the communist era. I was born in a Romanian family; a family which had the chance, or maybe the bad luck to experience this rigorous regime since childhood, so I can state that this piece of work classifies as a personal concept and argument of mine.

Illustrating the key questions in the abstract, my goal is to present the communist era from a different perspective, a feminist perspective. In order to achieve this, I firstly aimed to identify the main factors that leaded to the massive urbanisation, which changed people’s lifestyle and their habits, to understand what ‘communism’ meant to Romanian people and architecture, to argue the condition of women inside the domestic and familial spectrum and to understand the conditions imposed by the communism regarding the housing design and how did this limit the architectural thinking.

I divided the methodology I used in two sections: the first section was the theoretical research and the second section was the practical research. Firstly, as a part of the theoretical research, I used different documentation sources, such as: books, articles, Romanian communist books, Romanian magazines, websites and documentaries. I wished to use life stories of women who experienced communism and to analyse particular case studies – women who lived in collective spaces and women who lived in normal dwellings. Additionally, I used case studies found in the Romanian magazine “Arhitectura”, in order to illustrate the communist residential buildings typologies of Romania and I analysed some architects’ opinions within the surveys I had taken.

The practical research of my thesis represents the surveys I had taken during my summer holiday in Romania. The aim of these surveys was to illustrate different life conditions under the communist regime, through people’s feelings and opinions, to understand the experience women had within the domestic sphere from different perspectives (men and women) and to analyse and compare different opinions about the architectural limitations that communism brought to the country. In order to achieve all of these, I chose different kinds of people to complete my survey, such as: elderly people - for a direct contact with the communist era, middle-aged people - for an experience during their transition from children – teenagersyoung adults, senior architect and engineers - who practiced their professions during communism and an urbanist architect - who did not have contact with communism, but she is able to see the marks left.

The first chapter will briefly introduce the reader into the communist world of Romania. But the main focus of this chapter is the accelerated urbanisation in order to industrialise that affected mostly women, making them to face the challenge to adapt to a new world. This

chapter also contains a comparison and analysis of different public perceptions, linking my findings to the surveys.

Chapter II, titled “A collectivist society”, outlines the domestic scope of this dissertation. There is described the notion of ‘family’, perceived by the communists, the familial environment, where people were limited to live under several restrictions and the women’s struggle to adapt to the new developed urban environment. In the communist era, people were differentiated by their marital status. To be more specific, the residential buildings were separated in two categories: dwellings for married people – apartments of 1-4 bedrooms, and dwellings for unmarried people – collective spaces. Hence, women had to face a challenge they had never met before.

Within this chapter, I will introduce two case studies. The first case study illustrates the life of my mother, Cecilia, who lived in a two-bedroom apartment, inside a normal residential communist building. The second case study depicts the life of a single mother, Lavinia, who lived inside a collective space with her two children in a small room, with no utilities. The goal of the chosen case studies is to underline the differences made between the marital statuses of people and the challenging circumstances women had to face while living in the communist era, even though they were considered ‘equal’ to men.

The third chapter is focusing on the architects’ limitation in communist Romania and the experience of women architects. Starting from the rights equality, I want to emphasize the importance of women in the architectural field and what goals they had after the communist regime. I will include and compare here two of my interviews taken from two totally different people: the first one will be a senior architect who is a man that actively took part in the communist era and the second one will be an urban architect who is a woman, but who did not experience the communist era. Assessing these two opinions, I would like to offer a complex understanding of how communism influenced architecture and if it left visible ‘scars’ nowadays.

The last chapter emphasises the ‘communist housing’ typology. This chapter offers an understanding of what type projects mean and how they had been used. It is focussed on housing, illustrating the categories of residential buildings mentioned above, supported by specific case studies. Some of the analysed case studies are communists blocks from my hometown, built in 1981-1982, which reveal the brutalist style of those times and the usage of type projects. I will also describe my domestic experience of being raised in a communist block of apartments. The chapter ends with an important question, which has the aim to imagine an architectural world without communism.

The conclusion will examine my findings and it will establish the pros and cons results the communist regime had on housing, women’s lives, families and architects. It will enclose my thesis with a clear and critique opinion of what communism actually meant for the Romanian society and the ‘scars’ that were left after this era. Perhaps, it will not answer categorically to all the key questions asked, but it will certainly outline a new perspective of what communism meant for women inside the domestic and familial spectrum.

Chapter I. The story behind communism

I.I. Where? What? When? How? Why?

Where? The whole action of my thesis is happening in Romania. Romania is a small Eastern European country that followed for a serious amount of time the Soviet Union example. Being dominated by communism for almost 50 years, Romania managed to shape its own social character and got politically recognised.

What? Communism was known as the most restrictive regime for the Romanian society. From the technical point of view, it was a social, political and economic ideology which had the socialism as a foundation. Excluding the restrictive rules imposed to limit the population, by ‘severe regime’ I mean that communism imposed its ideology through force, where people were not obedient. In his article, “Reassessing the Communist Takeover in Romania”, Stefano Bottoni stated that studies made show that “between 1948 and 1964, almost two hundred thousand politically motivated arrests, deportations and temporary dislocations were carried out by the authorities”. (Stefano Bottoni, 2010) Based on some Romanian rumours, I think the real number of persecutions was bigger than the one listed in this article, but it is unknown to the public.

Following the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels from 1848, the Romanian communism betokened the materialisation of previous progressist thoughts, a philosophy which gives to the working-class’ actions the theoretical foundation of dialectical and historical materialism. (Radu Tanasoiu, 1979)

As I mentioned in my stasis, in 1875, Karl Marx wrote a manuscript called The Critique of the Gotha Programme, in which he distinguished two main objectives of communism. The first objective was to create a scheme that would have allowed people to control the government, but still to get paid depending on how much they were working; the second objective was a dominant communist society with no differences made between working classes. (Gabriela Ene, 2022)

After the “Communist Manifesto” of Karl Marx, the idea of socialism and communism got materialised more and more into the people minds, becoming a huge international ideology. This ideology was meant to take care of the people’s aspirations, creating a fair and rational society that can lead to progress and civilisation.

When? After the World War I, in 1921, the communist party worked underground and illegally until 1945, because the country was dominated by Jews and Hungarians. After 1945, the communist party started to work along with the liberals and the peasant party until 1947, when all three of them came together and became the Romanian Communist Party.

Romania had two unforgettable communist presidents: Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej (1944-1965) who had worked for the communist party since the former years and the second one was Nicolae Ceausescu (1965-1989) who closed the communist governance with his death.

How? The main purpose of communism was to create a new society, in which the private properties were taken and nationalised in order to start and expand a dashing industrialization. This was the first step to a blossoming economy. In addition, another purpose was to integrate equality between genders in order to improve the labour force, but my opinion about this fact is that the equality enforcement was superficial because the true women’s rights were profoundly diminished and the only purpose for this apparent equality was to enlarge the working class. An article titled “The status of women in Romania during the communist regime”, by Valentina Tanase, tries to argue that even if communism appeared to support and encourage the women emancipation and the gender equality, it actually created stronger differences. (Valentina Tanase, 2019)

The proposed mass urbanisation was particularly serving the new industrialised society. The authorities took the lands from people, especially within countryside, and nationalised all the plots, developing the agricultural field. In order to transfer the people from rural to urban environment, they started the mass construction of residential spaces in the cities. This action created confusion and disagreement between people, making them facing the new challenge of adapting to an unknown world.

Why? For this question I have more than one answer. The first reason represents a positive aspect: the aspiration for a wealthy and developed society. The second reason was the chance to equal rights between genders in order to have a larger workforce, but in the same time to support the woman emancipation and her transition from motherhood to a ‘multifunctional’ life.

Also, to offer an expansive answer, I should ask ‘Why was communism so restrictive?’. In order to be fully imposed and to successfully lead the country, the communist party required

Fig. 1: Nicolae Ceausescu’s signature on all official documents.

Fig. 2: Peasants working the land during communism Fig. 3: People moving from rural to urban

active or passive support from people. But not all the people were in favour of what was going to happen next, after the communists took over. Usually, people who were against this movement were considered ‘intellectuals’ (teachers or priests) and they were trying to convince the population through secret meetings to be against communists. But this did not work, because communists used brutal repressions to ‘educate’ the traders. Stefano Bottoni stated that “after 1956, repression affected an increasing number of professionals and intellectuals accused of cosmopolitism, and also teachers, traders, civil servants, and even party and police officers”. (Stefano Bottoni, 2010)

I.II. A challenging urbanisation imposed by the society

It is well-known that Romania faced a huge challenge during the communist regime, from the architectural point of view. By the 50s, Romania was one of the most undeveloped countries, having approximately 77% of population from the rural environment. Thus, the country did not have tall or obtrusive structures. (Gabriela Ene, 2022)

The drawing below presents the systematisation scheme of Bucharest, the first plan within the urbanisation process. The systematisation plan was initiated because of the devastations caused by the wars and because it was the desire for a socio-economic evolution of the country.

Fig. 4: The systematisation plan of Bucharest, 1944-1969

The analysis of systematisation as concerns the evolution of society was elaborated in 4 stages The first stage started between 1944-1947, after the declared republic and it was called the beginning of socialist construction. Its main aim was to refurbish the buildings destroyed during the war and to build new industrial or residential ones. This was the beginning of urbanism within cities; the focal point they started to build the communist blocks

The second stage was associated to some annual plans of economic development between 1949-1955. The prevailing concept was improving the living conditions of the working class, the construction of new suburbs and new cities. The biggest challenge for both architects and delegates was to reshape the new city in a civilised shelter and co-habitation space for people coming from both rural or urban environments.

Designing the spaces, architects were often looking to create homogenous groups of residential buildings, trying to achieve the aesthetic part in the same time. New neighbourhoods were urgently and fast designed around cities with accelerated development.

The third stage took place between 1956-1960 and it created the economic foundation of socialism. There was outlined the country industrialisation, the socialist transformation of the agricultural area and the cultural revolution. For the industrial cities, the main plan was to design new circulation routes, to structure the residential areas and to add better facility units.

The last stage started in 1960 and it was the era of the socialist economic achievements. The industry achieved its climax at this time. The focal point of this stage was now the assurance of new modern life conditions, focusing more on comfort within dwellings. By this, there was highlighted the reshaping of central residential areas and the update of systematisation plans. (S.P. Criveanu, 2010-2011)

Fig. 5: Dambul Pietros Quarter, Targu Mures

Fig. 6: Rovine Quarter, Craiova

In my opinion, the mass urban planning of the country brought both positive and negative consequences. I will start with the positive ones, by outlining the obvious expansion of industry and economy of Romania during the communist period. Although, the circumstances were hard to endure, the flourishing country became independent and wellknown. A.L. Cartwright mentioned in his book, “The Return of the Peasant: Land Reform in Post-Communism Romania”, that “without an appreciation of how rural land ownership was transformed (during collectivization), it is not possible to fully evaluate recent attempts at ownership reform, in particular the claim that the law is an attempt to compensate the peasants”.

(A.L. Cartwright, 2001)

In pursuance of economic success, the country needed to use its prevailing feature: the agriculture; so, the authorities took the lands from people and imposed them to change their lives, by moving to cities, where they had met a new environment they needed to adapt to. I am sure that even nowadays people are still trying to adapt to these conditions, because they are used to live in traditional ways, in the countryside. For example, my grandparents live in the countryside and even if me and my family are living in the city, we are always going to the countryside because there is ‘home’ and ‘family’. So, we are always attached to this part of the society to go to the rural environments. I think this might be our nature.

Fig. 7: Ferentari Complex, Bucharest, 1945-1948

Fig. 8: Residential area, Serban Voda, Bucharest, 1912

I.II.I. Public perceptions. Assumptions and analysis

During the summer break, I had the opportunity to take a few surveys from Romanian people who experienced the communist regime. I had collected their opinions and compared

Fig. 9: Illustration of an old article called “From the hut to the block, from misery to normal life”

them, in order to draw a public conclusion of what communism meant for people and for their living habits The people I chose to give this survey were selected by their life experiences during the communist regime.

To introduce you to my survey, I will reveal a part of it, exposing the first two questions and some answers. The first question I asked them was: “What is your opinion about architecture during communism?”. Of course, I got different answers, for example my grandfather who used to have direct contact with communism, being a young adult that time, answered that architecture during communism faced a huge evolution, which had the main goal of building residential spaces. But also, he stated that the industry developed more, especially the cars industry.

In contrast to my grandfather answers, I want to highlight a senior architect’s reply to this question. He said that it was a rigid system of conception and execution for both

Fig. 10: The questions of my survey

construction and architecture, based on the materials consumptions rules. Additionally, it was the limited capacity of architectural expression, materials and the communist authorities’ limited understanding.

As a comparison between these two answers, I can state that the different mentalities are visible, one of them being maybe more affected by communism than the other. There is also a difference between the regions they are coming from and the education they followed, because my grandfather is coming from a rural development and he studied within a communist school, not having postgraduate studies, meanwhile the architect is coming from an urban development and he followed postgraduate studies in Architecture.

I also wanted to know different opinions from people who did not have contact with the architectural practices during communism, as an outside thought, therefore I asked them this question: “Do you think communism limited the evolution of architecture? Or did it help it?”. As a result, I collected pros and cons opinions, or both; for example: a man, who experienced communism as a child, stated that somehow the evolution of architecture was limited because communists planned an accelerated urbanisation in order to take the lands from peasants for agriculture.

Comparing to this answer, my grandfather thinks that communism helped the development of architecture, the focal point being the construction of residential blocks, then the use of agriculture. Again, I have collected two totally opposite opinions, regarding the communist influence on architecture and I would like to underline that both of them had almost the same communist experience, the only distinctive facts being the age difference and that the man moved to the city after a countryside childhood.

Chapter II. A collectivist society

II.I. ‘Family’ and alteration

The notion of ‘family’ was succinctly described during the communist period. It is known that the family was divided in three main categories: the extended family (formed by: grandparents, parents, children, aunts, uncles etc), the nuclear family (formed by: parents and children) and the single-parent family (formed by one parent and children, usually the other parent died, divorced or it was just a co-habiting family). These family categories features were similar, such as: strong connections to one another, high stability in the hierarchy of marital roles with a predominately equal distribution of power, a considerable value of the righteousness of traditions and constant and significant approval from the community. (B. Nadolu, I.D. Nadolu, S.M. Asay, 2007)

In the book “Under a red sky” by Haya Leah Molnar, it is described the extended family and how they adapted to Romanian communism, being totally against it. The book portrays the childhood of a Jewish girl in a communist world, who did not realise back then what was actually going on. She used to live in Bucharest, in a small house, with her grandparents, her parents, her uncles and her aunt. She stated that if the family had not lived together in the same house, the communist authorities would have brought strangers to live with them, in order to occupy the free rooms of the house. (Haya Leah Molnar, 2010)

Fig. 11: The extended family

Fig. 12: The nuclear family

In addition, the book also describes the people’s life under a strict and limiting regime. It is highlighted the process of procuring food, and how it was distributed to people, with the imposed rules of not getting too much. They were going to the market early in the morning to manage to get what they needed, otherwise they would have not had the chance to get food. The meat was almost forbidden, people managing to buy it on the ‘black market’ or if they had connections, without authorities to know. I know from my parents that each person used to have a special card which allowed them a limited number of products, such as: bread, sugar, flour, oil or meat.

H. L. Molnar tried to expose in a profound manner the communist life form the late 1950s, mentioning that the Romanian society was “under the thumb of a long line of tyrannical Communist rulers”. (Haya Leah Molnar, 2010) She lived the communist experience mostly as a child, within a family that was against it and had never feared to let her know that. She was taught never to tell anyone else what she hears inside the house, regarding communists because there are ‘moles’ everywhere.

To find a conclusion of what I have read in this book in relation to ‘family’, I can admit that communism challenged the familial sphere much more than other spheres. The family typology analysed within this novel, was a typical rich family, which had lots of resources and conditions before communism, but they lost everything after the communist imposition, forcing the family members to adapt to a new world full of social and material deficiencies. What I really think about this family typology is that there were only complaints about how the communists took everything from them, how they should have left the country when possible, or how they used to have servants before communism and used to share a big house, but now they are forced to live together otherwise they will need to live with strangers.

Fig. 13: The book “Under a Red Sky”, by Haya Leah Molnar

But I think this is an exaggerated reaction; yes, communism was really hard to bear, but what about poor families from provinces? They did not have the chance to complain about anything. They were directly sent to a new world, not being taught how to react or how to adapt to the situation. As an example, I can describe a scene from the same book about the girl’s new classmate, a boy that came with his family from the countryside and could not adapt to the new standards and living habits. They were living in the same building with the girl’s family, but on the top floor in the attic, because they were poor. Thus, the real question is now: Who were struggling the most? The rich families which were already used to live in the cities, or the families which came from the rural environments?

The necessity to adapt to the changing social situation has put the family concept under constant pressure, demanding its constant search for efficiently and successfully models. (B. Nadolu, I.D. Nadolu, S.M. Asay, 2007) Family was a place where you could feel safe, a place where you could take refugee without being listened to or sneaked on.

II.II. Women’s daily life in the domestic sphere

The feminist view of the age focused on women's emancipation through labour and motherhood, despite the equality being one of the communists’ premises. It was highlighted how the status of a woman with full legal rights but subservient to the party, the state, and the family was changed from a woman who has succeeded to overcome the boundaries of the private, even possessing political rights and opportunities. (Valentina Tanase, 2019)

Fig. 14: My father’s family during communism

Fig. 15: Idem Fig. 14

Fig, 16: The magazine “Femeia” (The Woman), different issues from 1946

Up to the middle of the 20th century, neither political nor civil rights for women were guaranteed by the law. According to this, the feminist movement has been engaged in a fierce internal and external struggle for rights during the interwar period. As I stated in my stasis, “Romania was based on a patriarchal society, where the men power left its mark. Before communism, women were seen as machines for making children, cooking and cleaning, but after the communist doctrine was installed, women started to be considered equal to men. The majority of women from rural settings were not able to study, therefore they were commissioned to work the lands (previously privately owned, now owned by the government) and take care of their families.” (Gabriela Ene, 2022)

According to a communist Romanian book, called “Programul Partidului Comunist Roman de făurire a societății socialiste multilateral dezvoltate si înaintare a României spre comunism” (The program of the Romanian Communist Party to create a multilaterally developed socialist society and advance Romania towards communism), the biggest victories of the socialism in Romania were: the assurance of equal rights between women and men, the opportunity for affirming the energy and creative potential of women in all areas of social activities. Women were considered to have an essential contribution regarding the materially and spiritually production of the society through the family rise, the nation development, the youth of the population maintenance, the education of the new generations. (Partidul Comunist Roman – Romanian Communist Party, 1975)

Fig. 17: Women ‘emancipation’

Fig. 18: Working Class woman

We can observe a big discrepancy between what is written in the communist books and what are other people’s thoughts about the role of women and the apparent equality within the communist society.

Connecting the women subject to my survey, one of the questions I asked was: “How would you describe the women experiences within the domestic sphere during communism in Romania?”. My mother, who had experienced the communism during her transition from a child to a teenager and the to a young adult, stated that everything was relative regarding this subject, depending on each woman, because they could choose how they wanted to live their lives. For example, women who did not want to achieve more, were limiting themselves only to the domestic activities (cooking, cleaning, having and raising children), but women who wanted more, had access to further education, which offered them an evolution within the new created society.

A unique answer for this question I received from the senior architect who is a man; he thinks that because of the ‘transfer’ from the rural environment to the urban one, women had problems in understanding the new life-style conditions and that the communist propaganda had induced stereotypes, which emphasized the familiarization difficulties to the urban environment. Analysing his rigorous answer, I realised that I would agree with him because this would be a potential component that affected the women’s life within the domestic circle and made them facing the challenge of adaptability.

Adding the third different answer to the same question from another woman, I wanted to gently illustrate the different experiences women had during the communist era. A senior engineer woman replied to my question that even if women got equal rights with men, they were working a lot more, being also in charge of the domestic sphere, including the family.

Because my goal was to comprehend the experience of women in the home spectrum from all points of view, including men's viewpoints, I deliberately sought to evaluate a male response to this issue. This is why I chose to point the architect’s answer. We can clearly differentiate the man’s answer to the women’s answers because of the actual life experiences.

In addition, I would like to talk about a sensitive topic, which was the illegalization of abortion. Since 1947, when the Communist Party was officially recognised as the main national power, Romania followed the Soviet Union example. Hence, the abortion was prohibited firstly in 1948. But between 1957-1966, before Ceausescu’s regime, the abortion was legalized again in order to show the political interest in women’s emancipation, shifting the well-known woman’s role of motherhood with the one of a working-class member. After 1966, women faced again the illegalization of abortion, in order to increase the population. This fact brought severe problems, causing women deaths, but I am not going to discuss this topic in depth. (Iulia Statica, 2021)

Iulia Statica stated in her article, called “From Biopolitics to the Lived Body: Maternity, Reproduction and Domestic Space in Socialist Bucharest (1965-89)”, that the criminalization of abortion was establishing the significance of domesticity in the creation of perspectives and the social reproduction of subjects, as well as the crucial function of women's bodies in socialism. (Iulia Statica, 2021)

My opinion is that women were portrayed as machines for procreating, cooking, and housekeeping before communism, but following its implementation, they were promised to be

perceived on an equal footing with men, which I think it was just for ‘the show’, because the reality was different. Most peasant women were not able to get an education, therefore they were expected to handle the domestic circle: working the lands and taking care of their families.

(Gabriela Ene, 2022)

To create a connection between the massive urbanisation and the criminalised abortions, I can clearly affirm that the planned systematization of the cities influenced directly the decision to prohibit abortions, because the communists aimed for a growing population to occupy the new territories and to form a stronger working-class, in order to flourish the industry.

In order to achieve a better understanding of this topic, I wanted to analyse my mother’s life within the domestic sphere, living in a residential building for married people.

Cecilia Ene, a married woman, living in a communist residential building – Block B13, Ostroveni, Râmnicu Vâlcea, Romania.

Because she was married to my father, my mother got an apartment within a normal residential building, in a really populated area of Râmnicu Vâlcea. The block is a ten-storey building with 4 apartments per storey, which accommodates mostly families. The materials used for this building were: reinforced concrete, bricks, autoclaved cellular concrete, plasterboard and stone. These materials were used for the majority of residential buildings.

Fig. 19: Picture of my mother inside the apartment

The apartment was on the 6th floor and it has approximately 52 sqm, which is a bit small, including the fact that is contains two bedrooms, a living room, a bathroom, an extrasmall kitchen, a balcony and a storage space Regarding communal areas, this kind of residential block had only a small amount, such as: the staircase, the lift, a waste room for each level that later on it was transformed into communal storage serving all the people from the specific storey, and also the outside garden of the block, where mostly children spent their time playing.

Fig. 20: The Block B13, where my family lived, Ramnicu Valcea

Fig. 21: The plan of the apartment

Fig. 22: The bathroom, kitchen, hallway and balcony of the apartment

The domestic experience my mother had within this apartment was mostly during the post-communist period, when habits and thinking were still under the communist influence. She is one of the women who faced the challenge of moving from countryside to the urban environment, where she needed to adapt to a new life-style.

During the whole childhood and her teenage years, she was living in the countryside with her family, in a small village called Bogdănești situated 10 km away from the town. She was doing mostly domestic activities, helping her mother with the household and the animals. But in the same time, she was going to school, walking kilometres everyday to get educated. Her transition from rural to urban was difficile, taking into consideration her pre-settled habits; starting from aliments, she was not able anymore to procure the food from the family’s animals, she had to go and buy it from the supermarket. This aspect affected the majority of women who moved from countryside to the cities.

In relation to the urban life, Cecilia has adapted well to the apartment life. She made lifelong friendships with new people, particularly with those who lived on the same floor as her. A common fact between rural and urban environment was that people helped each other with whatever they could.

From my point of view, yes, it was hard for women to adapt to new living conditions, but not impossible. Now, in regard to the women’s daily life inside the domestic spectrum, I can argue that the city was created in such manner that led to a visible re-evaluation of gender

Fig. 23: Picture illustrating my mother and the neighbours on a Christmas Day

roles and highlighted a revolutionary terminology about women, who were paradoxically handed the duties of worker, spouse, and parent. Women did not have a choice or did not realise what they were able to do regarding domestic sphere, because of the indoctrinated way of thinking that the patriarchal power dominated the family and the household since ancient times. There are of course, some exceptions, cases where women leaded the family, but usually these ones are less known to the society.

II.III. How shared spaces impacted women’s daily life within homes?

I will initiate this debate, offering an example from the book “Under a Red Sky”, mentioned before. The reality understood by me is that even if women did not live within collective spaces, they had to co-habit with the extended family members.

In contrast to the previous presented case study about Cecilia, a married woman who lived inside a normal residential building, I would like to analyse now a totally different situation of a single mother, from a different town, who lived inside a collective accommodation.

Lavinia’s life, a single mother, living inside a communist collective block of apartments – Collective Building 2, Cisnadie, Sibiu, Romania.

Fig. 24: The room where Lavinia was living

Fig. 25: Lavinia and her son

Lavinia was a single mum of two children, who used to live in a collective building. The exterior of the building was looking like a normal communist block of apartments, with clothes hanging outside the windows and few TV satellites. But the inside of the building was looking like it was abandoned: heavy metal doors, dirty and broken.

She stated that during the nights, the entrance doors were locked to avoid any conflicts or intruders coming in, and people used to take out on the hallway the clothes driers, turning the whole corridor into a laundry room. The hallway was dark and small, with mouldy walls and had some locked cupboards of people who did not have space in their studios.

She was living on the ground floor (room no. 109), inside a cold room without a heating system and a floor made of concrete with no floor finishing. The room was small, dirty walls, a bad smell of old and mould. (Carla, 2013)

Fig. 26: The collective building where Lavinia used to live

Fig. 27: Lavinia’s old cupboard

Fig. 28: The main entrance of the building

Fig. 29: The communal toilets

Fig. 30: The door of her studio

Although collective buildings were intended specifically for single individuals, some people couldn't afford regular apartments, therefore they were forced to adapt to this way of life. We can now appreciate how challenging it must have been for a woman or mother to adjust and raise her kids in a ’matchbox’. Because everything was standardised during communism, people had few options. I would prefer to think of this as a positive communist-era influence since, in my opinion, having to share space taught people to be sympathetic and kind towards each other. (Gabriela Ene, 2022)

Rebounding the surveys I conducted, I would like to present and analyse another question and few answers, this time concerning daily living in collective spaces “How was the people’s life within collective spaces?” Most of the answers I got followed the same path: because of collective spaces, people learned how to form a community, how to help and understand each other, but I also have two answers which are opposite to the rest, saying that the life within collective spaces was difficult and there was no intimacy at all.

The foundation of a new collectivist ideology represented the homogeneity and reliability of dwelling construction, which were based on the massive manufacturing and the new communist individual to be shaped. Iulia Statica highlighted in her article that “the industrialisation of housing construction expressed the communalisation of dwelling in general”. (Iulia Statica, 2021)

To conclude this argument, I think that collective spaces had a humongous impact on women’s daily lives, because communists did not take into consideration women’s needs, so they put women in a position where they had to adapt to the lack of intimacy, by sharing the main spaces (kitchens and bathrooms). What is even sadder, is that even nowadays, in the postcommunist era, there are women who live in collective spaces, not having the opportunity for a better life and choosing to be content with the space sharing.

Fig. 31: Communist collective spaces nowadays in my hometown

Chapter III. Architecture without Architects

III.I. Women architects during communism

Due to the devastation caused by World War II, architects were sought after for their expertise in building reconstruction. Many women started studying architecture around 1945, with an emphasis on the more creative aspects of the field. (Gabriela Ene, 2022)

Women architects were purportedly treated equally to men architects, reflecting the major purpose of the dictatorship, gender equality. Women and men were and remain on an equal footing in the profession of architecture, notwithstanding Romanian folklore that ranked women behind men. Many women architects rose to fame during the communist ideology thanks to their work. (Ana Maria Zaharide, 2016)

Because of the high calibre of their work in areas such as: landscaping, urban planning, and house design as well as post-war construction, women architects quickly achieved notoriety. The question of whether there was genuinely equality or not is raised by the fact that following the introduction of type projects, women architects tended to become faceless and the projects were no longer linked to their names. (Gabriela Ene, 2022)

Fig. 32: Women architects during communism

As their number in the architectural profession increased, women typically appeared in "design-collectives" with the role of "chief designer”, but their emergence was always delayed, even until 1990. In general, there were not as many women who write or design for magazines as there are within the architectural industry as a whole. They represented 40% of all practitioners, but only 25% of all contributors and architects were acknowledged. However, there are some instances where there existed more women than men and others where there was no woman at all. Few women figured in the earliest issues of Arhitectura (the Romanian architectural magazine), and four of the first ten issues had no women at all. The magazine adopted a policy of secrecy at the outset, perhaps for nebulous political motives; even the editorial board remains unidentified until 1958. But after 1955, depending on the types of buildings offered, names of women played an important role, and there were notable variations from issue to issue. Women had been identified with their first names, while men were simply listed with the first name's initials. (Ana Maria Zaharide, 2016)

In order to create a bond between this topic and my surveys, I decided to ask both the public and architects if women architects were treated equally with men architects during communism. I had the pleasantly surprise to see that everyone answered to my question in the same way – YES, with small differences within their interpretations. To examine my findings, I would like to argue that all the evidences I acquired lead me to the conclusion that within the architectural practice, the main goal of communists (rights equality) was successfully achieved

III.II. Architects’ perception about the communist imposition

This subchapter aims to illustrate a comparison between two architects that took part in my survey: the senior man architect, who practiced his profession during communism, Cristinel Vlad and the urbanist woman architect, who is practising her profession now, after the communist regime had fallen, Andra Taudor.

The question that raised my interest to find out their opinions was: “Do you think communism was a good or a bad influence regarding the architectural field of the country? Why?”. In essence, I got two approximately similar answers, both of them stating that communism had both good and bad influences on architecture. Additionally, Andra augmented her answer by giving me a clear example: the city of Bucharest went through two big earthquakes during the 70-80s, which destroyed entire neighbourhoods that were built during the monarchy, the housing crises appeared. This is how many type buildings ended up being built, in a short time, to solve the housing problem. Communism kept the architecture and urbanism development in place. Nowadays, certain areas suffer from the development of that period because certain needs of the population were not taken into consideration.

In order to understand the public perceptions of architects during communism, I asked them how were architects perceived by the public, not trying to make a difference between women and men. I can state that again I obtained similar answers but from different approaches. Andra told me that during the communist period, architects were seen as intellectuals, but intellectuals were not appreciated like those from the working class. While, Cristinel stated that architects used to be seen as bureaucratic services providers, who get authorizations, agreements and directives from the councils. What I understood by analysing both answers is that architects were not actually valued for their work during the communist doctrine, even if without them the buildings we have now would have not been possible to get built. Also, asking the same question to the other persons I chose, from a public point of view, I realised that architects’ work was not well-known by the public, excluding my grandfather opinions who stated that architects were praised by people because they were working very hard within the construction projects.

Fig. 33: Informed consent form of Cristinel Vlad Fig. 34: Informed consent form of Andra Taudor

Chapter IV. Architecture of communists

IV.I. ‘Type projects’ and Typification

The housing output started to increase as soon as communist ideology was implemented, however only in a narrow context from a conceptual perspective. As I mentioned in my stasis, home spaces were designed by architects adopting ‘type projects’. But this also meant that attention was being focused on the urban environment rather than on individuals and their needs. Buildings for families or married couples and buildings for single persons made comprised the two categories of residential construction. (Gabriela Ene, 2022)

I can say that this new typification method persuaded to a limited architectural thinking, not giving architects the opportunity to use their free imagination in housing design. This is what I also understood from Cristinel’s answer, when I asked how does he perceive the architects’ limitation to design after ‘type projects’. He stated that type projects are the rigid expression of the concept of ‘type person’ – the communist person. So, in order to achieve a fast and qualitative development of the cities, communists also desired to create the type person.

Fig. 35: Early sketches of spatial tactics

Fig. 36: Idem Fig. 36

According to Arhitectura magazine, the initial preoccupation of the communist party in order to impose the type projects, were the spatial tactics, but after they analysed the situation, they main focus became the human’s needs. Soon after, this objective turned out to be a miscalculation, affecting the quality and quantity of dwellings. (“Arhitectura” Magazine, 5th edition, 1982) The implementation of housing typologies through an urban morphology, depended on the relationship between interior and exterior. They were following to implement a homogenous life-style and not to create typologies or significant structures.

Fig. 37: Table illustrating the standard dimensions of apartments

The illustrations showed above represent the type projects’ structures of residential buildings. The apartment’s plans were design specially to use most of the space within the building, forming different geometric shapes. Between 1981-1985 the plan was to design 900 000 apartments: 850 000 within the urban environment and 50 000 within the rural environment. The heights of the blocks were varying from two storeys to ten storeys (excluding the ground floor). (“Arhitectura” Magazine, 2nd edition, 1982)

Fig. 38: Drawings of type projects plans

IV.II. Family units: Housing

Block of Apartments I, Ana Ipătescu Street, Râmnicu Vâlcea, Romania

Architect: Liviu Benea

Year: 1981

Fig. 39: Northern image of the block

Fig. 40: The main façade

Fig. 41: West and East Facades of the block

This residential building is situated in my hometown, Râmnicu Vâlcea. I was built in 1981 by the architect Liviu Benea. I could not find plans drawings of the apartments inside due to the unknown sources from the communist period. But I can assume that the apartments followed the communist typology. I would like to emphasize that not all the blocks had the same exterior design, so this one had a more developed design.

Block I is still standing nowadays and is accommodating hundreds of families. Being situated in the most populated parts of the city, the city centre, it is very demanded. Nowadays, the blocks from this area are selling apartments very expensive, but back into the communism, the apartments were given for free to people who were transferred to the city for working.

The materials used to build this block were mostly pre-fabricated materials, such as: plasterboard, reinforced concrete, steel and glass, which were mainly used at that time. But over years, like many other buildings, it was refurbished.

Fig. 42: Axonometric drawing of the building

Architect: Liviu Benea

Year: 1981-1982

Fig. 43: Block I refurbished nowadays

Mihai Bravu Complex: Blocks L, M, N, Râmnicu Vâlcea, Romania

Fig. 44 & 45: Mihai Bravu Complex after it was finished in 1982

Fig. 46: East façade and section from East to West

This residential building is designed by the same architect I mentioned before, between 1981-1982. It is also situated in the city centre of Râmnicu Vâlcea and it used to be the symbol of the city, because it is right in the middle of all landmarks of the city.

The materials used were again prefabricated concrete, steel, plasterboard and glass.

My opinion, regarding these two case studies is inspired from the magazine “Arhitectura”, saying that our duty is to go beyond imagining the look of a dwelling, we need to be concerned of how to materialise the notion of ‘habitation’ because it has elements which are included in the reproductible sphere, in the constructive concept and inside the symbolistic values that offers ‘habitation’ adaptability in time. (“Arhitectura” Magazine, 5th edition, 1982)

To pleasantly conclude my thesis, I would like to introduce you to my personal experience of growing up inside a communist residential building. As I stated in my stasis as well, I am coming from a Romanian family who was lucky or maybe not to experience the communist period. So, I was raised following few communist ‘habits’. I was born in Râmnicu Vâlcea, and since then I spent my whole childhood within a communist block of apartments. In my first years of life, of course I did not realise what communism was and where I was

Fig. 47: Detailed drawing of the South façade

living. But, after I started growing and realising step by step what communism is, I started to look more careful for signs or symbols because I was very curious.

I had a happy childhood, because I used to spend my time playing around with other neighbours’ children all around the place: our home, their homes, or outside in the communal garden. I have never imagined before that I am actually living inside a communist building because my life was very beautiful. I used to have a lot of friends, class-mates from the same building, even family members who moved in the same block with us. During all the celebration days, such as: Christmas, Easter, New Year, our tiny apartment was full of people who were laughing, talking or dancing.

Subsequently, when I started to be interested in architecture, I wanted to find out more about the communist blocks and the communist history, because it was also about my country. I can say that I was also a lucky child because my parents tried to offer me everything I wanted and needed, despite of the children who grew up during the communism. I do not support or oppose the idea of communism. What I think is that I have different opinions about this dictatorship, some of them being pros and some being cons. But I definitely consider that we, as Romanian people, remained with the communist ‘scars’ nowadays.

Fig. 48: Picture of me and my mother

CONCLUSION

In this thesis I mostly addressed women’s lives during communism. As stated before, communism relied on equality, which was also established between men and women. This is the superficial idea that we are led to believe. The women who participated to the interviews have stated that communism brought hardship into their lives. The revolutionary implementation of equality was only respected at work because that was the main purpose of it. the working force grew bigger but women’s rights were never respected. Although they were given jobs, they were still expected to do the housekeeping and be active within the family life. The women from my survey suggested that women were overworked and they were expected a lot more than men. Another big issue in this case would be the prohibition of abortion. This was meant to increase the population and the working force. Although it served its main purpose, it also led to a lot of unsafe abortions and deaths of young women.

The patriarchy controlled women’s bodies in any form, not being able to respect them truly. Another case depicted in the second chapter is Lavinia, who was a mother of two and had to live in a collective building and struggle to fulfil her children’s needs. Communism was ideal only for families. As I stated before, in the workplace everyone was equal, including the architectural one. Women were treated equally and appreciated.

In summary, there is not an argument presented in this thesis that can lead to a certain conclusion about communism and its impact on women’s experience and architecture. All of the ideas above are meant to build a bigger picture in our minds, showing us different nuances that communism has generated, not only on the architectural style, but also in people’s lives.

As presented above, the main idea that fuelled communism was the industrialisation This implied the urbanisation of the cities, which was often perceived as challenging by the people because they had to walk away from their rural life-style and start working hard for the country’s well. It was a big change as people were used to work for their own good, to provide their own food and to have more freedom. However, people’s opinions can vary, a lot of them thinking that it was a necessary evil in order to achieve an overall better life. Starting from the industrialisation and urbanisation of the country, they brought a long-lasting ensemble of buildings, but a temporary mass production because it ended along with the communism.

From an architectural point of view, communism created solid buildings but in terms of design they were usually described as monotonous. As implied in the surveys presented during my thesis, the style was labelled as brutalist, people sharing approximately the same opinion, regarding the unwelcoming aspect of the blocks. This aesthetic is usually portrayed as cold and sad because of the heavy use of concrete and the dominant colour, grey. The angular shape combined with the nuances of grey remind us of a clouded sky, reflecting heaviness and helplessness, a sad entrapment of the soul. In spite of this, the buildings embodied very well the essence of the communism because they were numerous and they all looked the same. Furthermore, they served the same purpose and we can also say that they were equal. This is

what communism was all about regarding the people, but we can also see the secondary effect it had on the architecture. The same idea behind it was mirrored in more than one aspect, everything and everyone was equal.

What helped with the fast construction of the blocks destined for people were the type projects. Communism was keen on raising the efficacy by using these typologies and making buildings more practical. Within my surveys, the main opinion is that type projects limited the architecture, but this limitation was what needed to be done in order to achieve what communists had in their minds. Therefore, architects could not use their imagination and develop in any kind of way, but this was normalised and accepted. Later on, it impacted the country’s infrastructure by bringing a stagnation in terms of design.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

Douzinas, C. and Zizek, S. (2010) The idea of communism. London: Verso.

Hatherley, O. (2015) Landscape of communism: A history through buildings. London: Penguin Books.

KEMP, S.I.M.O.N. (2018) Was communism doomed?: Human nature, psychology and the Communist economy. SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PU.

Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1965) Manifesto of the communist party. Peking: Foreign Lenguages Press.

Maxim, J. (2019) The Socialist Life of Modern Architecture: Bucharest, 1949-1964. New York: Routledge.

Molnar, H.L. (2010) Under a red sky: Memoir of a childhood in Communist Romania. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Programul partidului comunist Român de făurire a societăţii socialiste multilateral dezvoltate şi înaintare a româniei spre comunism (1975). Bucureşti: Ed. Politica.

Tănăsoiu Radu (1979) Arhitectura Construcţiilor Şcolare pentru învăţămîntul Primar Şi Mediu. Bucureşti: Ed. Tehn.

Magazines:

Ionescu, S.R. (1982) "Arhitectura" Magazine, 2nd edition

Ionescu, S.R. (1982) "Arhitectura" Magazine, 5th edition

Popescu-Criveanu, S. (2010) Urbanismul

Articles:

Bottoni, S. (2010) “Reassessing the Communist takeover in Romania,” East European Politics and Societies: and Cultures, 24(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325409354355.

Cartwright, A.L. (2001) “Rewriting history – post-communist land reform,” The Return of the Peasant [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315187341-7.

Ditchev, I. (2005) “Communist urbanization and conditional citizenship,” City, 9(3). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13604810500392621.

Doboș, C. (2020) “Disciplining births: Population research and politics in Communist Romania,” The History of the Family, 25(4). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1081602x.2020.1807384.

Dohotariu, A. (2015) “The unmarried couple in post-communist Romania: A qualitative sociological approach,” The History of the Family, 20(4). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1081602x.2015.1012645.

Drazin, A. (2005) “Architecture without architects: Building Home and state in Romania,” Home Cultures, 2(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.2752/174063105778053346.

Hitchins, K. and Deletant, D. (2001) “Communist terror in Romania: Gheorghiu-Dej and the police state 1948-1965,” The American Historical Review, 106(3). Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2692511.

Nadolu, B., Nadolu, I.D. and Asay, S.M. (2007) “Family Strengths in Romania,” Marriage & Family Review, 41(3-4). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1300/j002v41n03_09.

Stătică, I. (2022) “From biopolitics to the lived body: Maternity, reproduction and the domestic space of Socialism,” Volume 10, 10(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.16995/ah.8279.

Tanase, V. (2019) “The status of women in Romania during the communist regime. Legislative and constitutional rights of women (1947-89),” 2(1).

Vais, D. (2020) “Type projects as tools: Housing Type Design in Communist Romania,” Architectural Histories, 8(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.5334/ah.321.

Zaharide, A.M. (2016) “The drawing board au Féminin: Women architects in Communist Romania”, Ideological Equals [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315587776-15.

Zarecor, K., (2014) Architecture in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. [online] Iowa State University. Available at: <https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/38934235.pdf>.

Stasis:

Ene, G. (2022) Architecture of Communists

Documentaries:

Molen, A. (2015) Documentary - The lost world of communism part 3/3 (Romania) YouTube. Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzmmskkuKlM&t=189s&ab_channel=ArjenMolen (Accessed: December 5, 2022).

Websites:

Maxim, J. (2013) Socialist Mass Housing in Bucharest, 1950-1970, SAH Newsletter

Available at: https://www.sah.org/publications-and-research/sah-newsletter/sahnewsletter-ind/2013/10/16/socialist-mass-housing-in-bucharest-1950-1970 (Accessed: December 6, 2022).

GILLETTE, R.O.B.E.R.T. (1985) Ceausescu getting rid of inefficient small villages, Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times. Available at: https://www.latimes.com/archives/laxpm-1985-12-17-mn-30002-story.html (Accessed: December 6, 2022).

Zaharide, A.M. (2018) The drawing board au Féminin. women architects in Communist Romania, Arhitectura 1906. Available at: http://arhitectura-1906.ro/2018/12/thedrawing-board-au-feminin-women-architects-in-communist-romania/ (Accessed: December 6, 2022).

Voinea, A.R. (2017) Blocurile roșii Din Ferentari schimbă spațiul social, MERG IN BUCURESTI. Available at: https://merg.in/de-povestit/reportaje/blocurile-rosii-dinferentari-schimba-spatiul-social-6063.html (Accessed: December 6, 2022).

Navadaru, C. (2011) Emanciparea femeilor in primii Ani Ai Regimului comunist, HotNews.ro. Available at: https://life.hotnews.ro/stiri-prin_oras-10701184emanciparea-femeilor-primii-ani-regimului-comunist-din-romania.htm (Accessed: December 6, 2022).

Stătică, I. (2022) From biopolitics to the lived body: Maternity, reproduction and domestic space in Socialist bucharest (1965–89), Architectural Histories. The Open Library Of Humanities. Available at: https://journal.eahn.org/article/id/8279/ (Accessed: December 6, 2022).

Marginean, I. (2016) Rolul femeii in comunism, prezi.com. Available at: https://prezi.com/xazkamdrz4iw/rolul-femeii-in-comunism/ (Accessed: December 6, 2022).

Nita, D. (2020) Carmen Bărbulescu: „Nu Erau Prezervative, Nu Erau mijloace anticoncepționale, Nu Era Nimic", Muzeul Comunismului. Available at: https://muzeulcomunismului.ro/carmen-barbulescu/ (Accessed: December 6, 2022).

Popescu, G. (2016) Femei în comunism, Radio Romania Actualitati. Available at: https://www.romania-actualitati.ro/emisiuni/istorica/femei-in-comunism-id81861.html (Accessed: December 6, 2022).

Carla (2013) Acasă La Lavinia, Joc Urban. Available at: http://www.jocurban.ro/2013/03/acasa-la-lavinia/ (Accessed: December 6, 2022).

Lazar, M. (2020) Viaţa la bloc în anii '80 ai comunismului ceauşist, Vice. Available at: https://www.vice.com/ro/article/wxeg7q/viata-la-bloc-in-anii-80-ai-comunismuluiceausist (Accessed: December 6, 2022).

Dragomir, L. (2016) Viaţa unui român din perioada comunistă în fotografii – Galerie Foto, Europa FM. Available at: https://www.europafm.ro/viata-unui-roman-din-perioadacomunista-in-fotografii-galerie-foto/ (Accessed: December 6, 2022).

Unknown (2015) Cum trăiesc Familiile Din blocurile de Nefamilişti Din Râmnicu Vâlcea, Ramnicu Valcea Week. Available at: https://www.ramnicuvalceaweek.ro/cum-traiescfamiliile-din-blocurile-de-nafamilisti-din-ramnicu-valcea/ (Accessed: December 6, 2022).

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 1 – Ene, G. (1975) Nicolae Ceausescu's Signature, Programul partidului comunist Român de făurire a societăţii socialiste multilateral dezvoltate şi înaintare a româniei spre comunism. – photo taken by me from the book.

Fig. 2 - (2022). Available at: https://www.ebihoreanul.ro/stiri/recolte-la-comun-cum-le-aluat-regimul-comunist-pamanturile-taranilor-din-bihor-in-numele-transformariisocialiste-a-societatii-169646.html

Fig. 3 - (2017). Available at: https://adevarul.ro/stiri-locale/botosani/cum-i-au-lasatcomunistii-pe-tarani-fara-pamant-1767699.html.

Fig. 4 - Ene, G. (2010) Urbanismul – photo taken by me from the magazine.

Fig. 5 - Ene, G. (2010) Urbanismul – photo taken by me from the magazine.

Fig. 6 - Ene, G. (2010) Urbanismul – photo taken by me from the magazine.

Fig. 7 - Ene, G. (2010) Urbanismul – photo taken by me from the magazine.

Fig. 8 - Ene, G. (2010) Urbanismul – photo taken by me from the magazine.

Fig. 9 - (2017). Available at: https://merg.in/de-povestit/reportaje/blocurile-rosii-dinferentari-schimba-spatiul-social-6063.html.

Fig. 10 – Personal Survey Questions

Fig. 11 - (2020). Available at: https://sandrinio.ro/intoarcerea-in-timp-revelionul-acasa/.

Fig. 12 - (2019). Available at: https://opiniabuzau.ro/interiorul-unei-locuinte-comunistereconstituit-la-muzeul-judetean-la-30-de-ani-de-la-revolutie/.

Fig. 13 - (n.d.). Available at: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7110422-under-a-redsky.

Fig. 14 – Personal Archive

Fig. 15 – Personal Archive

Fig. 16 - (n.d.). Available at: https://www.graphicfront.ro/ro-arh-revista-femeia1946#0#linkimg-5329.

Fig. 17 - (2011). Available at: https://life.hotnews.ro/stiri-prin_oras-10701184-emancipareafemeilor-primii-ani-regimului-comunist-din-romania.htm.

Fig. 18 - (2016). Available at: https://life.hotnews.ro/stiri-prin_oras-10701184-emancipareafemeilor-primii-ani-regimului-comunist-din-romania.htm. .

Fig. 19 – Personal Archive

Fig. 20 – Screenshot taken from Google Maps Street View. Available at: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0935328,24.3689548,3a,75y,294.75h,112.88t/data =!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjGtkpnH3Qe5MxCpUiAf14Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192.

Fig. 21 – Personal Archive

Fig. 22 – Personal Archive

Fig. 23 – Personal Archive

Fig. 24 - (2013). Available at: http://www.jocurban.ro/2013/03/acasa-la-lavinia/

Fig. 25 - (2013). Available at: http://www.jocurban.ro/2013/03/acasa-la-lavinia/

Fig. 26 - Screenshot taken from Google Maps Street View. Available at: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.7126643,24.1575249,3a,75y,154.04h,101.85t/data =!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRjsouSCNac7rPN1bN-ER8A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656.

Fig. 27 - (2013). Available at: http://www.jocurban.ro/2013/03/acasa-la-lavinia/

Fig. 28 - (2013). Available at: http://www.jocurban.ro/2013/03/acasa-la-lavinia/

Fig. 29 - (2013). Available at: http://www.jocurban.ro/2013/03/acasa-la-lavinia/

Fig. 30 - (2013). Available at: http://www.jocurban.ro/2013/03/acasa-la-lavinia/

Fig. 31 - (2015). Available at: https://www.ramnicuvalceaweek.ro/cum-traiesc-familiile-dinblocurile-de-nafamilisti-din-ramnicu-valcea/.

Fig. 32 - (2018). Available at: https://arhitectura-1906.ro/2018/12/arhitectura-la-femininfemei-arhitect-in-romania-comunista/.

Fig. 33 – Personal Survey Informed Consent Form

Fig. 34 – Personal Survey Informed Consent Form

Fig. 35 – Photo taken by me from the Magazine “Arhitectura”

Fig. 36 – Photo taken by me from the Magazine “Arhitectura”

Fig. 37 – Photo taken by me from the Magazine “Arhitectura”

Fig. 38 – Photo taken by me from the Magazine “Arhitectura”

Fig. 39 – Photo taken by me from the Magazine “Arhitectura”

Fig. 40 - Photo taken by me from the Magazine “Arhitectura”

Fig. 41 – Photo taken by me from the Magazine “Arhitectura”

Fig. 42 – Photo taken by me from the Magazine “Arhitectura”

Fig. 43 – Screenshot taken from Google Maps Street View. Available at: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.1021061,24.3665878,3a,90y,84.25h,105.86t/data= !3m6!1e1!3m4!1smiVIVkzU2yKnDJlJU3v1UQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192.

Fig. 44 – Photo taken by me from the Magazine “Arhitectura”

Fig. 45 – Photo taken by me from the Magazine “Arhitectura”

Fig. 46 – Photo taken by me from the Magazine “Arhitectura”

Fig. 47 – Photo taken by me from the Magazine “Arhitectura”

Fig. 48 – Personal Archive

APPENDICES

1. Thesis Presentation Slides

2. Completed Informed Consent Forms and Surveys