Urban landscapes as interpretative instruments to express political power

Daniela DUMBRVEANU1, Aurel GHEORGHILA1, Anca TUDORICU1

University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geography, Human and Economic Geography Department
Romania

Abstract:
This article is interested in presenting the principle of using landscape, especially urban landscape to
express identities and political power. It discusses the fact that the process of understanding landscape is a matter
of interpreting a meaning which is always based on founded assumptions and speculations.
It is also discussing the idea that different things will hold a different meaning to different people
emphasizing perception as an important aspect in social constructs of landscapes. Starting from the point where
world is considered a huge album and society is basically a visual culture, the importance of images of places is
presented and considered as a base for further development for how landscapes are both managed and
communicated to people.
Several case studies are considered to illustrate the argument of how urban landscapes can become
instruments to interpret and express political power.
Key words: urban landscape, interpretation, landscapes of power, national identity

1.INTRODUCTION
Despite what most of the people think and
believe, landscape, weather natural, rural or
urban, it is not easy to decipher and
understand. Landscape is easy to look at and
find attractive, boring or dull. But it is
certainly difficult to understand its degrees of
complexity, its functions and the messages it
might be communicating to public, visitors or
tourists. In other words, landscape is difficult
to interpret, due to the fact that reading it
is not a matter of finding a typical cultural
area, but a matter of seeing how landscapes
come to mean different things to different
people and how their meanings change and are
contested (Crang, 1998). Understanding
landscape is a matter of interpreting a meaning
which is always based on founded
assumptions and speculations due to the
complexity of the concept. Even the natural
landscape would imply assumptions when it
comes to be interpreted by humans, but this
paper it is mainly interested and focused on
human built landscapes. Normally all
landscapes incorporate a built, tangible

environment, and also an immaterial

dimension attached to it which is normally
given by the readers point of view. This is
called perception.
According to Crang (1998) and
Holloway & Hubbard (2001), people make
sense of places or construct places in their
minds through three processes. First, through
planned interventions such as planning, urban
design; second, through the way in which they
or others use specific places; and third,
through various forms of place representations
such as films, novels, paintings, news reports
and so on. It is generally acknowledged that
people encounter places through perceptions
and images. As Holloway & Hubbard (2001,
p. 48) describe this, interactions with places
may be through direct experience of the
environment or indirectly through media
representations. However, what is critical is
how this information is processed, namely, via
mental processes of cognition, to form stable
and learned images of place, which are the
basis in peoples everyday interactions with
the environment, built or natural. It is the
mental representations either in the form of
maps or images, that individuals create to

allow them to navigate through complex

reality, because our surroundings are often
more complex than the sense we make of
them. Reading landscapes deals specifically
with such mental images. Understanding
landscapes centres on peoples perceptions
and images and puts them at the heart of
constructed, orchestrated activities, designed
to shape the place and its future. When it
comes to managing the landscape situation
could become an attempt to influence and treat
those mental maps in a way that is favourable
to the present circumstances and future needs
of the space.
2. URBAN LANDSCAPES AS
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS
Present society it is definitely
dominated by its visual culture. Therefore
world can be looked at through its visual
dimension, red through it and also understood.
Hence it can be seen as an album with a
multitude of landscapes including the
landscapes: of everyday life, of power, of
conflict, even of the body, which are in a
strong interdependence, creating a vision of
reality for each one of its members.
According
to
anthropologist
Appadurai (1986), things create people as
much as people create things; therefore a
social relationship doesnt necessarily exist
exclusively between human beings the
components of landscapes hold metaphorical
meanings that can convey understanding and
insight into past, present and future societies.
In this respect, the urban landscape is
probably the most interesting case. City is the
point of maximum concentration for the power
and culture of a community. The city does not
simply happen; it is rather the a cumulative
product, the creation of many lifetimes of
creative efforts(Lewis Mumford, cited in
Bowman 1995:44). The city is a palimpsest
and a landscape of power; it is a composite
the sum of all the erasures and overwritings, an overview of the societys history.
Urban landscape is a result of a temporal
process; each of its layers is a symbol of an

era. Cities are complex places, they never

present a clear historical picture that can be
comprehended at a glance; they are a collage
of landscapes changing through time that
embody meaning.
Sometimes urban landscapes are more
than just a creation, they are psychological
tools, which can subtly impose points of view.
According to Winchester (2003:66) one of
the key ways in which power can be
expressed, maintained and indeed, enhanced,
is through the control and manipulation of
landscapes and the practices of everyday life.
This is how the powerful social groups are
trying to impose their versions of reality to the
others, shaping the environment after their
own interests and affecting the entire
axiological system of the community by
proposing their own values.
Therefore the landscapes of power are
meant to reflect and reveal the power of those
who construct, define and maintain them,
having the capacity to legitimise the powerful
by affirming the ideologies that created them
in the first place(Winchester, 2003:67).
Cities provide many examples of
landscapes of power, such as buildings,
monuments and even street names.
Architecture has always been an easy way to
express political power since the ancient
times; pyramids were built to shelter the
coffins of the kings, symbolising their rank
and importance. Magnificent churches and
cathedrals were constructed to express faith of
communities, fortresses, monuments and other
edifices were built to reflect power, to
celebrate importance, to commemorate
golden ages. Buildings have been used to
express power of communities, power of
events and also to evoke history, normaly
through style, size, colour, shape etc..
3. CASE STUDIES OF LANDSCAPES OF
POWER
Nowadays some buildings have kept
size to expressing and suggesting the power of
their creator. Size it is also used in buildings to

express meaning, either the meaning of a

certain message, such as the greatness of a
nation, its golden ages, the foreseen future etc.
frequently it is also the case of the creator
being one person identifying himself or herself
with the nation or with the power or with both.
Such a relevant example is, for thie case, is
the House of the People(Casa Poporului)
from Bucharest, Romania. The edifice was
built at Nicolae Ceauescus idea, after he has
visited North Korea where he developed an
admiration for the grandiose personality cult
encountered there and especially for the
monumental totalitarian architecture. (Light,
2001). The initiative was sustained by the
devastating earthquake from 1977, which
damaged severely Bucharest and allowed the
dictator to remake the city in his own image.
(Light, 2001:1059) The central point of his
creation was the Civic Centre, which was built
to impress the foreign visitors with its
magnitude. Bulevardul Victoria Socialismului
(The Victory of Socialism Boulevard) was
projected to surpass in size the Parisian
Champs Elysees, being 3,5 km long and 96m
wide, lined with tremendous apartments
designed especially for the senior Communist
Party officials.
The notorious Casa Republicii (The
House of Republic) has guerdoned
Ceauescus plan, being the second largest
building in the world, with a surface area of
300,000 square metres and occupying a land
area of 6,3 ha.
In order to accomplish this major
project, during the period of its construction
the Romanian population had to face serious
problems (such as food rationing) because of
Ceauescus decision to pay the countrys
external debt by reducing the energy
consumption and maximizing the exports
without raising the production.
Meanwhile, around 400 architects
were designing Casa Republicii and the
20,000 persons involved in its construction
were using one million cubic metres of
marble, 900,000 cubic metres of hardwood

and 5kg of gold leaf in order to create a

landscape of power, despite the hard period
Romanians were going through. (Light, 2001)

Figure 1: Bulevardul Victoria Socialismului (today,

Bulevardul Unirii - The Unity Boulevard)
Source: http://www.peteava.ro/datafiles/storage/imagini/2007/180/b0639dffd9af6ca4649fe1d348
ff6bde7d0b3185-resize.jpg

In a paradoxical manner, the actual

House of Parliament does express through its
dimension the drama of the nations sacrifice.
The whole process of building this edifice was
of considerable length, implied huge amount
of resources, particularly human resources. It
also meant loss of a historical landscape and a
community loss.
After the fall of communism (in
1989) the enormous structure gained the name
The House of the People, probably in
recognition that the building was something
for which all Romanians had endured
considerable hardship (Light, 2001:1061) or
symbolising the fact that the power of decision
was finally in the hands of the demos. Today
the construction shelters the post-socialist
parliament,
negating
this
way
its
totalitarianism connotation and being renamed
as the Parliament Palace.

Figure 2: Casa Poporului The House of the People,

today: Source:
http://theraconteur.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html

Frequently this type of building goes

hand in hand with creating a whole urban
landscape through which the political power is
suggested. Commemorative street names,
especially in urban areas are the most used
element to evoke power. Their reading and
interpretation could also be difficult, as they
are public memorialisation of a nation,
introducing the national history into the
everyday consciousness of the urban
populace(Light, 2004:155).
According to Azaryahu (1997:479),
as a ritual of revolution, the <renaming of the
past> is a demonstrative act of substantial
symbolic value and political resonance,
introducing the political-ideological shift into
ostensibly mundane and even intimate levels
of human activities and settings. Hence, the
commemorative street names are not only
instrumental for mapping of the geography of
the city, but also provide an official and
authorised mapping of history(Azaryahu,
1997:480).
The collapse of communist regime
has involved the redefinition of whole life,
society economy, political system, including
the axiological system of the population and
its national identity.

The reborn society focuses on

rejecting the socialist past as much as on
shaping a new reality. This also implies the
reconfiguration of the landscapes, which
includes the removal of the public statuary and
monuments relevant for the communism and
the reconstructions of the iconic buildings that
had previously been demolished by socialist
regimes. (Light, 2004) Moreover, the
renaming of the streets is an important
exercise of power for the new authorities,
being meant to bury the recent past and to
commemorate the relevant events for the
history of the nation. For example, in
Bucharest there were 288 street name changes
between 1990 and 1997 in order to
demonstrate
Romanias
post-socialist
orientation and aspiration(Light, 2004:161).
Some of these streets names have
focused on the commemoration of the 1989
revolution when more than 1000 persons lost
their lives in order to put the basis of a new
Romania. Places like the location of the
former Communist Party headquarters (and a
main field of battle during the revolution)
became national symbols: Revolution
Square. Even in front of the massive building
of House of the People the street signs
celebrate the new era Romania has
entered Bulevardul Libertii (Liberty
Boulevard) and Bulevardul Naiunilor Unite
(United Nations Boulevard). (Figure 3)

Figure 3 - Street signs in front of the

House of the People; Source:
http://theraconteur.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html

Other streets were renamed after

cities where many had died in the fighting
(Timioara, Braov, Sibiu) or after individuals
who have died in the revolution.
On the other hand, pre-socialist
political personalities overshadowed by the
communism regime were also commemorated,
important boulevards being named after liberal
politicians (like Ion C. Brtianu) or after
Romanias kings (Carol I, Ferdinand).
Moreover, figures from culture and science
especially from the period of Greater Romania
(1918-1938, when Romania was as its great
territorial extent) were celebrated, including
musicians (George Enescu), painters (Theodor
Pallady), architects (Petre Antonescu, Ion
Mincu), actors (George Vraca), philosophers
(Constantin Stere), scientists and many others.
The same change happened in Berlin after the
fall of the wall; the German reunification that
followed led to the renaming of East Berlins
GDR past, demonstrating the political
transformation and emphasizing the aspect of
democratisation as the quintessence of the
process (Azaryahu, 1997:491).
The process of decommemoration had
two different stages the first one, in 1991,
represented the effort of the district politicians
to erase the Stalinist past from the cityscape,
and the second one, more complex, was
prompted by the Senate later on. The
Independent Commission which was set up in
1993 was meant to examine the street names
in the city centre and to suggest alternatives
where needed. After the decision that Pierk,
Marx and Engels must disappear(Berliner
Zeitung, cited in Azaryahu, 1997:490) and
many disputes among the politicians, MarxEngels Platz and Wilhelm-Pieck-Strasse were
renamed, restoring their former names:
Schlossplatz and Torstrasse. In this way, the
traces of the former communist German state
were erased from the cityscape, showing the
beginning of a new era.
Another way in which the political
power can be materialized is through the
monuments that can contribute to the social

constructions of ideologies. Although most are

emblems of the past, the present still offers
examples of using prominent sites to make
political statements. Danish architect Johan
Otto von Sprecklesens Arche de La Dfense
(Figure 4) is one of the recent symbols of
Paris, which contributes to the citys
collection of monumental architecture. Part of
Francois Mitterands ambitious building
program, les Grands Travaux, the Grande
Arche is situated in the centre of the new
Parisian business and financial district, stating
its signification in the realm of French
capitalism.
It is obvious that the building
embodies public investment, but it accentuates
governmental control and imposes its political
power through its manipulation of the past.
The Grande Arche is related to the Arch de
Triomphe and uses this symbolism not only to
identify the citys northwestern extension, but
also to welcome new business interests to La
Dfense (Chaslin, 1989). Moreover, the
success of this monument made Francois
Mitterrand continue the series of grand
projects, including the extension of Louvre,
adaptive reuse of Muse dOrsay, various
projects for la Villete, LInstitute du Monde
Arabe, Le Ministre des Finances and
LOpra de la Bastille.

Figure 4 - La Grande Arche de la Dfense

Source:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Grande_Arche_d
e_La_D%C3%A9fense_et_fontaine.jpg

Furthermore, La Grande Arche de la

Dfense is expressing Francois Mitterrands
intention to create modern monuments that
underline Frances central role in art, politics,
and the world economy at the end of the 20th
Century.
One another significant concerning
the reading of the landscape is the fact that the
monuments are used to communicate along
history
specific
messages.
Normally,
monuments are designed by artists who are
using suggestion and symbols to communicate
to express their signification, commemorating
the period or the personality they represent,
while the buildings amplify more their
architectural value.
Referring back to capital City of
Bucharest one significant example is the
Revolution Square with a complex of
monuments. The most visible monument is
also the most recent, namely Memorial of
Rebirth or Revivals Memorial as its
interpretation states. Revolution Square also
accommodates Iuliu Manius statue, Corneliu
Coposu statue and the Memorial Flame.

Figure 5: Revolution square. Source :

http://tibinews.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/piatarevolutiei.jpg

The Square it is a typical case of a

landscape being used to commemorate a
historical period/event and people. Memorial

of Rebirth though heavily contested does

communicate the whole message of the place.
Firstly it has been designed to be land
mark of the 1989 Romanian Revolution and
the core of the historical space from within the
square. Secondly it was specifically designed
to continue in telling the modern story of the
nation by subtly and unconventionally
incorporating the other statues already existing
in the area. The other two statues, of Iuliu
Maniu and Corneliu Coposu, on one hand are
evoking the personalities of the famous
politicians on the other are the symbol of anti
communist battle, both during interwar and
post communist period. The lay out of the
whole square with former Royal Palace on its
western side (presently Romanian National
Museum of Art); Central Committee of the
Communist Party on the eastern one (presently
Ministry of Interior and Administrative
Reform); was the explanation of the events of
the Romanian Revolution. The same lay out it
is presently very convenient to express the
story of those events in a commemorative
way.
The Memorial of Rebirth through its
four components , design and inclusion of all
the other square memorial elements is an
example of using urban landscape to interpret
history and national identity. The very first
memorial component is The Victory Path,
routed in the painful failure of Iuliu Maniu
(prominent Romanian politician, National
Peasant Christian Democratic Party, well
known for his anti communist idea) to defeat
communism, under the sad looks of
Corneliu Coposu ( same Peasant Christian
Party, anti communist, better known after
1989 as politician and for his actions to reform
post communist politics), leads the young
heroes The Reminiscence Wall and
Recollection Square. Reminiscence Wall does
list the name of all people who died during
December 1989 events. Recollection Square is
restating the faith of the nation through the
orthodox cross cast in wooden inside the
marble pavement of the square. The core of

the Recollection Square and the Revolution

Square is the core of the orthodox cross from
which it springs The Pyramid of Victory to
commemorate both the people who have
obtained it and the collapse of communism
and express hope of a free future.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The power of this landscape and the
symbols used to express it, is complex. This
space evokes history, commemorates events
and people, states national identity and tells
the story of the place. Interpreting such a
landscape is a challenge and almost always a
controversy, which has been the case of
Revolution Square and the Memorial of
Rebirth.
As mentioned above, power is
constructed through space; landscape is a
social creation, a consequence of attitudes and
actions and a witness of a nations layers of
life. According to Bourdieu (1997), the
construction and the distribution of the built
environment allow the transmission of the
meaning from one generation to the next,
therefore landscape can only be interpreted in
its own context, in terms of time and space.
This is one of the reasons that make the public
memorialisations of a nation become a
subject
to
multiple
readings
and
interpretations (Bell, 1999, cited in Light,
2004:155).

Development, Baltimore and London: John

Hopkins University Press
Chaslin, F., 1989,
A monument in
perspective, La Grande Arche de la Dfense,
Electra Moniteur, 19-125
Holloway L. & P. Hubbard (2001), People
and Place: The Extraordinary Geographies of
Everyday Life. Harlow
Light, D., 2001, Facing the future: tourism
and identity-building in post-socialist
Romania, Political Geography 20, 1053-1074
Light, D., 2004, Street names in Bucharest,
1970-1997: exploring the modern historical
geographies of post-socialist change, Journal
of Historical Geography, 30, 154-172
Winchester, H., 2003, Landscapes: Ways of
imagining the world, Pearson Education

5. REFERENCES
Appadurai, A., 1986, The Social Life of
Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective,
Cambridge: Polity Press
Azaryahu, M., 1997, German reunification
and the politics of street names:the case of
East Berlin, Political Geography, vol. 16, no.
6, 479-493
Bourdieu, P., 1997, Pascalian meditations,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Bowman, A. and Pagano, M., 1995,
Cityscapes & Capital, The Politics of Urban