The term “informal architecture” lacks a precise definition within the academic discourse, largely due to the absence of serious research into this subject prior to the 1930s. One of the earliest investigations into this domain was conducted by Giuseppe Pagano and Daniel Galdieri, who examined Italian rural architecture in the 1936 essay Architettura rurale italiana(1). Their findings, first presented at the sixth edition of the Triennale di Milano, sought to highlight the aesthetic value inherent in the functionality of informal architecture. However, it was Bernard Rudofsky who, in the 1964 MoMA exhibition Architecture without Architects, provided this architectural phenomenon with a name. Beyond merely cataloguing its diverse manifestations, Rudofsky exposed the deep-seated biases that have historically undermined its recognition, rendering it a marginal topic within architectural scholarship(2).
The 2023 Venice Architecture Biennale represents a contemporary effort to revisit vernacular architecture, with the Slovenian pavilion’s exhibition, In Search of Well-Tempered Architecture, exploring the intersection of ecological concerns and architectural practices. This investigation underscores the enduring relevance of informal construction methods as a repository of ecological and cultural wisdom(3).
Contrasting Formal and Informal Architectural Beliefs
At its core, the distinction between formal and informal architecture lies in their philosophical foundations(4). Formal architecture adheres to well-defined rules, aspiring to impose order on the chaos of the natural world through human logic. By contrast, informal architecture is a deeply personal endeavour, shaped by the creator’s subjective tastes and immediate needs. As such, it becomes a profound and intimate expression of individual identity.
The concept of vernacular architecture is often entangled with the notion of kitsch. Because it reflects subjective preferences, it is frequently dismissed by architects as lacking sophistication. Its apparent disregard for formal logic has led to its marginalization. Yet, informal architecture endures, with Rromani architecture emerging as one of its most evocative – and controversial – manifestations.
Rromani Architecture: A Cultural Manifestation
The history of the Rroma people is intrinsically tied to their nomadic roots. Originating in India, they migrated across Asia and Europe(5), gradually losing direct ties to their homeland(6). Nevertheless, their cultural identity has persisted, vividly expressed through traditions, art, and, notably, their architectural practices.
While Rromani architecture is scattered across Eastern Europe(7), its most striking expressions are found in Romania, particularly in the village of Buzescu. Often referred to as “The Beverly Hills of the Gipsies”(8), Buzescu has become synonymous with the phenomenon of the Rromani palace.
Buzescu, a 19th-century village in Teleorman County, began attracting Rromani settlers in 1908. The influential Căldări clan purchased land in the village to escape the constraints of urban regulations(9). Initially, Rromani homes were modest, resembling traditional Romanian cottages but featuring slightly denser ornamentation. The shift toward the grandiose began with Marian Grânea, a prominent Rromani leader whose vision and wealth transformed the architectural landscape of the city. His villa, reportedly valued at one million euros, showcases the opulence of Rromani palaces with its lavish interiors and premium materials(10).
The metamorphosis of Buzescu has not only elevated global awareness of Rromani culture but has also reasserted its visibility. However, the ostentatious palaces that brought fame to the village also drew controversy, with media narratives fixating on the questionable origins of their owners’ wealth. What could have been celebrated as a unique cultural practice was instead trivialized, reducing Rromani architecture to a caricature of excess.
Rromani Architectural Features and Cultural Symbolism
Despite its eclectic aesthetic, Buzescu’s architecture reveals underlying patterns that lend a degree of order to its apparent chaos. Towers, non-structural columns, and expansive loggias dominate the skyline, while elaborate gates and mosaic-patterned pavements reflect the individuality of each household. A defining feature is the ubiquitous bench, a traditional element in Romanian rural life that has been seamlessly woven into the village’s streetscape.
Throughout their migrations, the Rroma preserved their cultural identity through their language, familial bonds, and symbolic practices(11). Wealth, often represented through gold, occupies a central place in their culture. This is evident in traditions such as hoarding gold as a portable asset(12), the reverence for high-paying professions(13), and the frequent use of gold-toned yellow in their architectural decorations(14).
Colour symbolism plays a nuanced and significant role in Rromani architecture, particularly in Buzescu, where vibrant hues of white, red, and yellow are commonly used to represent power and prosperity(15). These colours, paired with intricate ornamentation, not only adorn the façades but also reflect the community’s cultural roots, with each detail contributing to a narrative of identity and pride.
Buzescu’s cultural richness is amplified by its playful reinterpretation of conventional symbols, such as the massive dollar signs discreetly placed on patio roofs. While these emblems are rooted in the global iconography of wealth, they take on a distinct meaning here, reflecting the Rromani reverence for fortune and sparking the curiosity of onlookers. According to locals, however, these decorative elements are more about personal taste than symbolism and often serve practical purposes, like illuminating patios.
The relentless pursuit of grandeur often supersedes practical considerations in Buzescu. Despite the expansive size of their homes, most Rromani families occupy only their ground floors(16). Upper stories are often left unfurnished or incomplete, existing solely to surpass the height of neighbouring structures(17). Interior layouts defy conventional logic, with rooms connected haphazardly, reflecting a lack of functional differentiation(18). Many of these spaces are unused, serving primarily as storage for dowries(19).
Buzescu as a Cultural and Architectural Statement
Drawing inspiration from Le Corbusier’s modernist principles(20), five key characteristics could be said to define the architecture of Buzescu:
1. A competitive spirit drives continual expansion and embellishment, reflecting the cultural belief that wealth equates to respect.
2. The ground floor serves as the primary living space, with dowry rooms as central elements.
3. Colours and decorations carry symbolic meaning, rooted in Rromani heritage.
4. The bench, a symbol of communal life rooted in Romanian traditions, is a recurring feature that blends local influences with Rromani culture.
5. The integration of nearby public spaces into the architectural design is necessitated by the local authorities’ neglect of urban planning and street maintenance.
Despite its cultural vibrancy, Buzescu’s architectural techniques remain unremarkable, reflecting the simplicity of informal construction. Built by ordinary people rather than professional architects, the village exemplifies how cultural expression can thrive within the bounds of limited expertise.
In Buzescu, every ornament tells a story. These decorations, far from being mere embellishments, serve as powerful markers of identity and cultural pride. The village’s lack of regulation has allowed it to flourish as a unique cultural statement, though one fraught with tension. As scholars continue to debate its significance, a pressing question emerges: Is Rromani architecture a kitschy display of excess, or a profound manifestation of cultural identity?
Notes
1. Pagano, Giuseppe, and Galdieri, Daniel. Architettura rurale italiana. Milano: Ulrico Hoepli, 1936.
2. Rudofsky, Bernard. Architecture without Architects: A Short Introduction to Non-Pedigreed Architecture. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1964, pp5.
3. “Pavilion of Slovenia at the 18th International Architecture Exhibition La Biennale di Venezia.” Last modified 2023. Accessed July 11, 2023. https://mao.si/en/exhibition/pavilion-of-slovenia-at-the-18th-international-architecture-exhibition-la-biennale-di-venezia/.
4. Rudofsky, Architecture without Architects, pp4.
5. Fraser, Angus M., and Mazal Holocaust Collection. The Gypsies. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, USA: Blackwell, 1995.
6. Ibidem.
7. Celac, Mariana. “Roumanie: Les hautes toitures du Baragan.” [Romania: The Pitched Roofs of Baragan]. L’architecture d’aujourd’hui, no. 335 (2001). Accessed June 9, 2024. https://www.archipress-editions.fr/products/larchitecture-daujourdhui-335.
8. O’Neill, Tom. “Home of the Roma Kings.” National Geographic Magazine. Last modified 2012. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/wealthy-roma.
9. Personal communication on-site with the Căldări clan.
10. Ibidem.
11. Duminică, Ion. “Simbolistica tradițională a rromilor europeni în perioada contemporană.” [The Traditional Symbolism of the European Rroma in the Contemporary Period]. Buletinul științific al Muzeului National de Etnografie și Istorie Naturală a Moldovei 13, no. 26 (2010): 154-164.
12. Panaitescu, Ion C. Robii – Aspecte țigănești: Originea, viața, ocupațiile, obiceiurile, datinile, moravurile și dezrobirea lor. [The Slaves – Gypsy Aspects: Origin, Life, Traditions, Customs, Habits and Liberation]. Bucharest: Tipografiile Române Unite, 1928, pp. 11.
13. Ibidem.
14. Personal communication on-site with the Căldări clan.
15. Ibidem.
16. Ibidem.
17. Ibidem.
18. Gräf, Roland. Palate Țigănești – Arhitectură și Cultură. [Gypsy Palaces – Architecture and Culture]. Studii de Atelier. Cercetarea Minorităților Naționale din România no. 9 (2009), pp. 27.
19. Ibidem.
20. Le Corbusier, and Jeanneret, Pierre. “Les 5 Points d’une Architecture Nouvelle.” Almanach d’Architecture Moderne, 1926.
Author
Maria-Cristina Trifan is an architectural assistant based in London. She holds an MSc from Politecnico di Torino, where her final thesis explored Rromani architecture. Her research challenges widespread stereotypes by examining its symbolic language, historical context, and potential as a new vernacular. Passionate about architectural symbolism and the evolution of decorative elements in design, she explores how they shape cultural identity, perception, and the communication of meaning in architecture.