The pavilion is open and, in the strict sense of the word, sensitive to the environment, superposes the naturality and artificiality and weaves an informed landscape from metal filigree and plants. Thus a network is born, the green reticle, which captivates and filters the solar light and heat. It communicates in an innovative, profound but simple sense Romania’s statement on nature and culture and thus corresponds with the intrinsic spirit of Expo 2000 in the sustainability theme: all its components and energies will be reintegrated after the expo in natural and technological circuits. The inner space is conceived as a complete installation of art. The architecture and transposition of the themes have a direct correlation with elements such as the earth, the water or the light. They signify stability, transformation and openness.
PROIECT: DORU COMSA, ANDREI MIHAILESCU
TEXT: SILVIA GUGU, DORU COMSA
FOTO: ANDREI MIHAILESCU

The residence designed by Radu Teaca near Bucharest, placed longitudinally underneath some airways that tie at the airport, has the bizarre vocation to be assimilated and perceived mainly ‘a vol d’oiseau’. Imagined as a classical villa, the house is conceived as serving a space meant to induce serenity and a calm recollection, so that the tumultuous romantic mess is excluded even from the arrangement of the trees, even from the draining of the water collected by the gutters, controlled also by a gutter with a scarpanian suggestion. Exactly this serenity and scrupulousness in the ensemble conception requests a distance for contemplation, obliging somehow to an all seeing look from above, from the height of the airplanes that are en route to the airport. With fine intuition, the architect has not lost sight of treating the roofs so that a descendent perspective would not encounter the aridity of some trivial terraces.
PROIECT: RADU TEACA
COLABORATORI: DRAGOS PERJU, REMUS HARJAN,MIHAELA BOGATEANU
TEXT: SILVIA GUGU
FOTO: RADU TEACA

We are talking about a restaurant – Columbus – and a bar – NEMO. I must mention that I usually deal with decoration and rarely with durable edifices so that mistakes don’t have the disadvantage of perenity but only the successes of the provisional state. To save the people from the magazine from writing about the way this establishment looks like (thus avoiding their critics and you can see it for yourselves anyway if you go behind the National Theatre), I thought of writing about the adventure of its construction rather than it’s disputable finality.
PROIECT, TEXT, FOTO: CORVIN CRISTIAN

I think that the residence you have must be the place in which you have the maximum comfort. Even in the communist misery I have seen many cases in which you were in communism until the door’s threshold. Of course, the rooms were small and you couldn’t get around with heavy furniture, but they had the signs of a certain bourgeoisie, which had no connection with the elevator or with the inner stairs. The same way it is said that the apartment building is a street on the vertical: the inhabited places offered many times such a surprise. I remember that in the Obor market there was on sale some unpolished fir tree furniture, made by peasants – stools and table, the table being the very simple concept of a table: with four legs and a drawer. Of course everybody frowned at that furniture because everybody wanted polishing which, in fact, looked horrible. A friend of mine bought or received from abroad a wallpaper with a glade and filled the paneling of a kitchen closet and painted the margins. It looked very good. It was modest, but very pleasant. I find that Bucharest remained in a great part a city with an inner sociability: only the relatives are visiting or only the girl with the son-in-law. There is no relationship social life. And I go mad when for this situation I get arguments of the financial type. This is a mentality issue. I have the experience of living in group and I know that people don’t visit each other neither do they get out of the house to meet. Everybody with their relatives… I have met families where for 28 years nobody entered their home. My opinion is that the idea of urbanization implies an external sociability. It’s mandatory! People to meet because they are friends, they have businesses, relationships or want to get amused together. If you fusionally remain in your kindred, your family, you are bewildered. There are people who pay only the phone subscription and not out of poverty, but because they don’t talk to anybody. They have a phone only to satisfy their urban condition. But they haven’t appropriated in no way this city and that is confusing. We are not a capital, we are a town, with a small center. Bucharest sleeps in a big village’.
INTERVIU: OANA TANASE
FOTO: SERBAN BONCIOCAT