Systematisation (Romanian: Sistematizarea) in Romania was a program of urban planning carried out by the Socialist Republic of Romania under the leadership of Nicolae Ceau?escu. Ceau?escu was impressed by ideological mobilisation and mass adulation in North Korea's Juche ideology during his Asia visit in 1971, and began the campaign shortly afterwards.
Beginning in 1974, systematisation consisted largely of the demolition and reconstruction of existing villages, towns, and cities, in whole or in part, with the stated goal of turning Romania into a "multilaterally developed socialist society".
Systematisation began as a programme of rural resettlement. The original plan was to bring the advantages of the modern age to the Romanian countryside. For some years, rural Romanians had been migrating to the cities (including Ceau?escu himself). Systematisation called for doubling the number of Romanian cities by 1990. Hundreds of villages were to become urban industrial centres via investment in schools, medical clinics, housing, and industry.
As part of this plan, smaller villages (typically those with populations under 1,000) were deemed "irrational" and listed for reduction of services or forced removal of the population and physical destruction. Often, such measures were extended to the towns that were destined to become urbanised, by demolishing some of the older buildings and replacing them with modern multi-storey apartment blocks. Many rural Romanians were displeased with these policies.
Although the systematisation plan extended, in theory, to the entire country, initial work centred in Moldavia. It also affected such places as Ceau?escu's own native village of Scornice?ti in Olt County: there, the Ceau?escu family home was the only older building left standing. The initial phase of systematisation largely petered out by 1980, at which point only about 10 percent of new housing was being built in rural areas.
Given the lack of budget, in many regions systematisation did not constitute an effective plan, good or bad, for development. Instead, it constituted a barrier against organic regional growth. New buildings had to be at least two storeys high, so peasants could not build small houses. Yards were restricted to 250 square metres and private agricultural plots were banned from within the villages. Despite a perceived impact of such a scheme on subsistence agriculture, after 1981 villages were required to be agriculturally self-sufficient.
In the 1980s, nearby villages surrounding Bucharest were demolished, often in service of large scale projects such as a canal from Bucharest to the Danube - projects which were later abandoned by Romania's post-communist government.
In cities, the systematisation programme consisted of demolishing existing buildings (often historic ones) and constructing new socialist style ones. Ia?i, for instance, underwent major transformations in the 1970s and 1980s. Although communist tower blocks and other socialist buildings are present in all big cities across Romania, the degree to which the historical buildings (old town areas of cities) were destroyed varies by city. For instance old historical architecture managed to largely escape demolition in some cities, particularly in cities such as Cluj, where the reconstruction schemes affected primarily the marginal, shoddily built districts surrounding the historical city centre.
The mass demolitions that occurred in the 1980s, under which an overall area of 8 square kilometres (3.1 sq mi) of the historic centre of Bucharest was leveled in order to make way for the grandiose Centrul Civic (Civic centre) and the House of the Republic, now officially renamed the Palace of Parliament, were the most extreme manifestation of the systematisation policy.
The demolition campaign erased many monuments including 3 monasteries, 20 churches, 3 synagogues, 3 hospitals, 2 theatres, and a noted Art Deco sports stadium. This also involved evicting 40,000 people with only a single day's notice and relocating them to new homes.
Systematisation, especially the destruction of historic churches and monasteries, was protested against by several nations, especially Hungary and West Germany, each concerned for their national minorities in Transylvania. Despite these protests, Ceau?escu remained in the relatively good graces of the United States and other Western powers almost to the last, largely because his relatively independent political line rendered him a useful counter to the Soviet Union in Cold War politics.
Eastern bloc housing: