| مستخلص: |
Hybridization has become a popular topic in the contemporary culture research, and together with the process of globalization have contributed to the emergence of heterogeneous processes that have led to the manifestation of hybridization in all fields. In this article, we will look at a hybrid type of housing situated at the interference between the urban and the rural, which appeared since the twentieth century in Romania and that we filtered through the urban models defined by Francoise Choay. These models, inspired on the one hand by the belief in progress (the progressive model), and on the other by the nostalgia for the past (the culturalist model), are identifiable in the way cities and villages have developed in Romania in the last century. Even before the First World War, there was a concern and an intention to align housing policies in Romania with the European trends influenced by the emergence of garden cities, which came as a solution to the chaotic and unhygienic development of cities caused by the increasing industrial production. The culturalist approach of the housing development lasted until World War II, when the communist regime came with new housing policies that led to housing production in the sense of the progressive model. The communist period was characterized primarily by a policy of industrialization of the country, which led to a strong urban dynamic and a movement of migration from the village to the city. The forced relocation of the peasants in the city determined a ruralization of the city by the way in which the living space was appropriated by the new inhabitants. Paradoxically, the city was ruralized, while at the ideological level the urbanization of villages was required. Post-communist and contemporary housing questions the validity of these classical urban models, the possible alignment of concepts like sustainable development or low-tech city with their principles or the need to define new ones. The characteristics of housing promoted by each period (type, size, location, construction materials) translate a paradigm shift of social transformations, environmental conditions, and residential areas, and analysing the housing stock dynamics in different historical periods in urban and rural areas at different administrative-territorial scales allow the identification of housing production mechanisms. The production of housing determines certain architectural forms, which, in turn, influence the lifestyle of the inhabitants, and these new lifestyles end up having an impact on the production of housing. Hybridization is visible both in terms of architectural form and lifestyle, the challenge being to determine the productive discrepancies of these three layers: production (politics and economics), architectural form and lifestyle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
Find this article in full text from Scitation.