Abstract
The avid pressure that technological progress imposes is also transposed into the built space, which must be able to accommodate the new needs/challenges. But if a device is easy to replace with a new one, a building is not as easily replaceable. Recycling seems to be a key word of the 21st century, but in some situations, it seems a difficult action to apply to constructions that have reached a stage unsuitable for use. The public has positive recollections of the centennial-built space, ruins of a bygone time it witnessed only in books or photographs, which through the lens of the mind appears almost romanticised. On another note, the remains of recent buildings are sometimes seen as an aggression in the built space, ruins of a time that has been witnessed and whose time is still felt. As in the case of post-military architecture that, although laying fallow, is still surrounded by walls with sealed gates, absent of its original usefulness because it is technologically outdated. Military events have significantly influenced the history of the world and that is why the military legacy, in all its aspects, has been important in shaping today’s society [1]. These ensembles are often adjacent, but they are not erased from the local memory, because the city is a living organism, in perpetual transformation, that functions as a a coherent system. As the military-built environment began to suffer mutations in the way it is built, it also needed to be in unison with the changes in the society and politics. Therefore, special care was taken in the instruction of the future military cadets in construction. Looking at the evolution of modern military-built environment is there a corelation with the evolution of the construction branch in the military school? Can we deduct that this could be a factor offering more value to some of the military buildings? If we consider the immovable heritage of military constructions as legacy, then it represents an intangible connection through the memory of a place, or an object that can be important from a social or cultural point of view and which can be transmuted in a catalyst object in the socio-cultural environment of a community.
Download
Cite this article
Lupu, A.G. (2025). Memory of Modern Post-Military Constructions. In Architectural Experiences, 1, (pp. 156-159). Editura Universitară Ion Mincu
References
- D. Venter, “Examining military heritage tourism as a niche tourism market in the South African context” African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, Volume 6, 2017.
- L. Klupsz, “The spirit of the military heritage places”, Quebec, ICOMOS, 2008.
- D. Atanasiu, “Contribuții la istoria învățământului militar din România”, vol1, Editura Militara, 1978.
- G. Fluture, Renașterea armatei Române, Galați, 1937.
- M. Târzioru and S. Pădureanu, Istoria construcțiilor și domeniilor militare, Ed. Militară, 1995.
- Monitorul Oastei nr. 10 din 1860, p. 145-149.
- Arhiva MAPN, Registrul istoric al Școlii militare de artilerie și geniu, Raport asupra inspecției tehnice a Serviciului de geniu din 1905.
- D. Atanasiu, “Contribuții la istoria învățământului militar din România”, vol2, Editura Militara, 1978.
- Arhiva MAPN, Registrul istoric al Școlii militare de artilerie și geniu.
- S.R. Convington, “NATO and Soviet Military Doctrine, TheWashington Quarterly, 2010.
- Converting Military Airfields to Civil Airports, Department of Deffence Office of Economic Adjustment, 2005.
- S. Bară, A. Antal, M. Barbu, “Patrimoniul provenit din fostele baze militare trecute în circuit civil între realitate şi uitare”, SDA, 2011.
Issue contents
pp. 20-25
pp. 26-31
pp. 32-35
pp. 36-39
pp. 40-43
pp. 44-49
pp. 50-53
pp. 58-63
pp. 74-79
pp. 80-85
pp. 92-97
pp. 104-109
pp. 110-113
pp. 114-119
pp. 120-123
pp. 128-133
pp. 134-139
pp. 140-143
pp. 144-147
pp. 156-159
pp. 164-171
pp. 178-183
pp. 184-191
pp. 236-241
pp. 252-255
pp. 260-265
pp. 266-269
pp. 270-273
pp. 274-279
pp. 280-285
pp. 290-295
pp. 296-301