# Forms of Housing Production in Peri-urban Territories
## -Gradients of Urbanity in Cluj (Romania)

Diana Galos

► To cite this version:

Diana Galos. Forms of Housing Production in Peri-urban Territories -Gradients of Urbanity in Cluj (Romania). ENHR 2024 - Making Housing systems work, TU Delft, Aug 2024, Delft, Netherlands. hal-05002977

HAL Id: hal-05002977

https://hal.science/hal-05002977v1

Submitted on 24 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
# Forms of Housing Production in Peri-urban Territories - Gradients of Urbanity in Cluj (Romania)

Diana Andreea Galos (Pogacean)

CRH - Center for Housing Research, LAVUE, Paris, France & Technical University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

e-mail:diana.galos2@gmail.com

## Abstract

In post-socialist Romania, peri-urbanization surged due to reduced government intervention, the dissemination of neoliberal ideology, a burgeoning middle class, and increased car ownership.

In Cluj, a secondary city in Romania, skilled professionals and high-wage sectors raise housing prices, driving urban dissatisfaction and middle-class migration to villages.

Our objective is to investigate the housing system potential of peri-urban areas. While exploring housing dynamics in Cluj's peri-urban area, we found a blend of urban and rural elements in architecture and lifestyle choices. This fusion reflects emerging housing typologies and showcases the complex interaction between urban and rural influences. Moreover, it's influenced by adaptable housing policies and infrastructure, often following rural and peri-urban migration rather than leading it.

Our interdisciplinary investigation unveiled diverse housing patterns, underlining the necessity to define various gradients of urbanity specific to the urban-rural way of life. The criteria for determining urbanity gradients are nuanced, focusing on residents' housing motivations, architectural aesthetics, parcel use, lifestyle, and a sense of connection and belonging to surroundings.

Through this article, we will endeavor to uncover the processes of producing housing forms within peri-urban territories and to identify which housing typologies best respond to a coherent and sustainable development of the peri-urban territory.

Keywords: peri-urban, urbanity gradients, housing typology

## Introduction

Romania is a country that inherited the Soviet model, which was entirely based on collective housing. The communist period was primarily characterized by a policy of industrializing the country, leading to strong urban dynamics (Virdol 2005, 209) and consequently a migration movement from rural to urban areas (Ghinea-Christu 2019, 127). This resulted in an increased need for housing in urban areas, and the compromise was quantitative construction at low-quality standards (Alpoi, Iacoboaea, and Stăncescu 2014, 11). The favoring of collective housing led to a paradigm shift regarding housing in general: houses were more likely to be the residences of disadvantaged families, while apartments housed those in more advantageous social positions (A. Soaita and Dewilde 2020, 1060).

The 1990s brought significant changes in the population's lifestyle and mindset: housing, domicile addresses, prestige, and the notions of home and space were reevaluated. Due to the lack of a national assimilation and urban integration plan, the new urban forms that emerged adopted a mimetic model already present in European and American cities (Suditu et al. 2014, 134).

The three forms of housing that appeared in the post-communist context were: houses and neighborhoods for gated communities near major cities (built by a wealthy social class), followed by a second generation of individual houses specific to the middle class, characterized by the lack of urban facilities resulting from the adoption of cultural forms (Suditu et al. 2014, 134). After the development of the financial and mortgage system, residential neighborhoods of collective housing appeared both on the outskirts of cities and in nearby villages. The suburban forms of housing development are the result of a transition period in Romania, characterized by a lack of control over constructions and the impact of the population's freedom of choice and action.
Similar to most Eastern European countries, the suburban housing that emerged in Romania exhibited a degree of informality primarily defined by unauthorized constructions subsequently legalized, private financing of constructions with cash, and unplanned suburban neighborhoods lacking basic utilities (A. M. Soaita 2013, 2085–88).

Thus, the housing system in Romania has evolved from the collectivist policies of the communist era to the individualistic and sometimes chaotic developments of the transition period. Today, it is still in the process of development and regulation. Due to the attractiveness of peri-urban and rural areas for housing, the actors involved in their development directly influence the evolution of infrastructure and construction methods in these areas.

## Location

Today, the individuals relocating to villages in Romania are members of the middle class, comprising educated individuals who no longer resonate with the urban lifestyle or the housing options prevalent in socialist-era blocks or residential complexes (Ghinea-Christu 2019, 139). They want a shift in their way of life and are actively seeking out new places to settle. This trend is particularly noticeable in Cluj and the surrounding villages within the county.

The prevalence and impact of universities in Cluj, coupled with the growth of lucrative industries, have led to a significant concentration of educated professionals in the city. Consequently, certain fields boast salaries above the national average, creating an imbalance in the real estate market. Currently, Cluj exhibits the highest housing prices in the country, whether in terms of rentals or sales.

As an important socio-economic area, the metropolitan zone of Cluj-Napoca has experienced impressive urbanization in recent years, especially on the city's outskirts. 90% of the total population growth has occurred in the first ring of the metropolitan area (Dolean et al., n.d., 4). Following the analysis of built-up areas in the first ring of the Cluj metropolitan zone through semi-automated GIS analysis, an increase in built-up surface area was observed from 11.13% in the year 2000 to 20.07% in 2019 (Dolean et al., n.d., 4).

From an economic perspective, between 2008 and 2018, the economy doubled in both Cluj-Napoca and its metropolitan area. Cluj's local economy and workforce changed dramatically after the 2008-2010 Financial Crisis, becoming a Central and Eastern European hub benefiting from globalization through outsourcing. In 2018, 20% of employees in Cluj commuted to work: 41,400 people worked in the city but lived elsewhere, with the largest flow of commuting employees coming from the first ring of metropolitan communes (Petrovici and Mare 2020, 17). Cluj's economic expansion has increased demand for housing in its peri-urban regions, attracting both investors and residents.

Interest in living outside city limits stems from various factors, including escalating real estate prices within urban areas, evolving preferences shaped by the socialist housing legacy, and more recently, the impact of health crises.

## Issue

This impressive development has led us to focus our research on exploring individual housing developments in the peri-urban areas surrounding Cluj-Napoca, with the intention of providing a scholarly perspective of the phenomenon.

The questions we ask are: *What is the potential of the housing system in the peri-urban areas of Cluj?*
*How is individual housing manifested in this territory, and which of the existing housing typologies is closest to a qualitative, attractive, and sustainable solution?*
In Romania, the peri-urban territory is still marked by the shortcomings of a developing housing system. Thus, in addressing these questions, we start from the hypothesis that the modes of living and building specific to the peri-urban areas are characterized by an urban-rural hybridization evident in the emerging housing typologies. This hybridization is apparent not only in architectural design but also in lifestyle choices. It emerges as a result of the interplay between public policies, urban planning directives, the agendas of real estate developers, and the expectations of the residents who choose to inhabit these dwellings.

## Methodology

The demonstration commenced with a critical analysis of three different layers: housing production, architectural form, and resident lifestyles. We reviewed legislative frameworks governing peri-urban development, conducted exploratory research on architectural form through a multi-phased exploratory research approach involving observation, photography, and detailed description. Additionally, we engaged residents through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews to understand their lifestyles, providing insights into their experiences and perspectives.

Field visits and interviews with families transitioning from urban to rural environments provided insights into house selection, acquisition, construction, and daily life in peri-urban and rural areas. Using an interview guide, we developed worksheets for each house visited, aiming for diverse contexts to understand housing diversity. The mixture of urban and rural elements on multiple levels highlighted a unique hybridization of each situation. Thus, demonstrating the existence of hybridization was insufficient to understand the characteristics of housing typologies. This necessitates measuring hybridization based on a clear set of criteria to establish the gradients of urbanity for each case study. The definition of criteria and the specific gradients of urbanity for each case represents the preliminary phase of quantifying the analyzed examples, which forms the basis for defining the typologies.

The identified analysis criteria concern: Motivation behind residential choice (method of land or house acquisition), Architectural aesthetics, plot occupation and equipment typology (formal versus informal approach to the project, plot occupancy, building materials and techniques, architectural element forms, equipment and utilities), Lifestyle and place appropriation (agricultural involvement, consumption patterns and services, storage spaces, neighborhood interactions).

Understanding them will help us identify which existing forms of housing need development and support from the housing system, as well as how they can transform and develop it.

## Criteria for identifying urbanity gradients

### 1. Method of acquisition

Societal evolution has introduced residential choice, unlike traditional rural societies where people were bound to a specific location, occupation, and community (Jacques Brun, Driant, and Segaud 2002a). Modern families, particularly the urban middle class, now have the freedom to choose the location, typology, and financing of their homes.

Residential choice is influenced by factors like geographical location, type of construction, legal status of occupancy, area size, comfort level, surroundings, proximity to public transport, and quality of nearby schools (Jacques Brun, Driant, and Segaud 2002a). Sociologist Guy Tapei identified two resident types: sedentary and extraterritorial/mobile, each reflecting distinct residential strategies (Tapei 2014, 75). The sedentary category, comprising land inheritors from popular or middle classes, is naturally or intentionally tied to a specific place, aiming to preserve or reconnect with their roots. Conversely, the extraterritorial category, typically from wealthier classes, lacks strong ties to the area and selects residences based on purchased or leased rights. Sedentary behavior is common in rural settings, while extraterritorial tendencies prevail in urban environments.
## 2. The formal-informal dynamic in project approaches

Throughout history, housing has entailed a reflective process preceding construction, with humans adapting their expectations by integrating natural elements into house design (Jacques Brun, Driant, and Segaud 2002e). This intuitive, vernacular approach is typical of rural societies known for informal gestures.

Today, building a house requires the coordination of various experts due to societal and production technique advancements. This has led to a formalization of the design and construction process. To gauge how the formal or informal nature of a housing project aids in establishing urbanity gradients, we'll explore the contrast between vernacular (rural) and scholarly (urban) approaches. Then, we'll define formal and informal in the context of homebuilding and outline the stages from conception to inhabiting the space.

Vernacular architecture, viewed as primitive, indigenous, or rural, emerges collectively without architectural oversight. Its origins and construction methods are ancient and often lost to history (Lucan 2021, 18), with many examples preserved in museums today. Rural vernacular architecture adeptly adapts to local climatic, topographic, and cultural conditions, harmonizing with the environment through a symbiosis of climate, site, materials, and landscape (Rapoport 1972).

Vernacular architecture is often associated with a distant past, natural materials, and manual techniques, contrasting with scholarly architecture influenced by societal evolution. Despite new representations, it persists, especially in peri-urban areas. Homes here showcase contemporary vernacular forms, constantly adapting to family needs through DIY activities, epitomizing modern vernacular. Despite urban regulations, individuals use bricolage to modify both their plots and houses. This process alters architecture and land, reflecting a deep attachment to place and a desire for freedom in land ownership and construction (Leger and Mariolle 2018, 215).

The key difference between scholarly and vernacular architecture is design: scholarly architecture involves specialists and a structured process, while vernacular lacks formal design stages. Peri-urban areas, free from urban institutional filters, blend these styles. Here, houses often only formalize the building permit stage, with changes and extensions done DIY-style, aided by construction stores and accessible resources.

Historically stigmatized for poor comfort and hygiene, rural and peri-urban architecture has evolved, influenced by industrial society, to improve living conditions and mimic urban environments. This modernization formalizes home design and production, emphasizing comfort as a primary goal.

## 3. Plot occupancy

The layout of plots, residents' car usage (including type, number per family, and parking arrangements), the use of annexes, and the type of fencing all provide insights into family lifestyles and the degree of urbanity.

Traditional rural households in Romania, like those in the Cluj area, are historically centered around a courtyard, garden, and orchard, supporting agricultural production (Mihăilescu 2011). Today, rural living is evolving beyond farming (Jacques Brun, Driant, and Segaud 2002e), with more non-farmers moving in and adapting the landscape with new structures like garages and carports.

Residential mobility from urban to rural areas often reflects aspirations for cleaner air, homeownership, and autonomy, driven by limited finances (Tapei 2014, 57). Cars play a crucial role in rural and peri-urban areas for necessary mobility, influencing how living spaces are organized and residents' connection to their environment.
The choice and number of cars per family vary with distance from urban centers, impacting plot organization with features like external garages or dedicated parking spaces. Meanwhile, annexes traditionally used for agricultural purposes are increasingly repurposed into leisure spaces, blending rural and urban influences.

In terms of *fencing*, rural areas typically feature multiple enclosures using natural materials like wood or reeds, while urban areas often have minimal or no fences. Safety perceptions among new rural residents have also shifted, adopting urban practices such as closed doors, intercoms, and surveillance cameras for security.

## 4. *Building Materials and Techniques*

Materials have always been key indicators of civilization's development, culminating in today's era of advanced materials. Beyond technological and aesthetic qualities, the sociological dimension of materials and their implementation techniques must be considered. It's essential to examine materials and building techniques together to establish gradients of urbanity for housing in peri-urban and rural environments.

Until the 19th century, rural living was ecologically oriented, with buildings constructed using local materials, maintaining vernacular homogeneity (Jacques Brun, Driant, and Segaud 2002d). But this geographic determinism is fading as more economical and efficient alternatives become accessible (Lucan 2021, 26).

In the 21st century, the deterritorialization of the economy and shifts in production systems (Cloquet 2013) have led to widespread prefabrication in construction, influenced by the modernist movement. (Bouchet-Bloancou 2020, 9). Natural materials, sourced directly from nature, undergoing minimal structural alteration and primarily dimensional calibration, before incorporation into construction projects, were traditionally used in vernacular dwellings (Cloquet 2013). In our study area, these include stone for foundations and masonry, wood for framing, straw or reed for insulation, and earth for walls.

A chronological assessment of old buildings reveals an evolution from stone or earth masonry to brick, and from wooden shingles or straw/reed coverings to ceramic tiles. While still natural, these materials are now more accessible and cost-effective due to industrial production methods, losing the vernacular and rural character of handcrafted transformation. New industrially manufactured materials, regulated for standardization, impart urban sophistication but hinder innovation in non-standard materials and local resources. Certification processes favor industrial materials, making it difficult for locally sourced materials to compete due to higher costs and lack of resources.

The urbanity gradient of a material and construction technique depends on: Material type, Production method and Installation technique. We consider rural materials those who are sourced from nature, crafted manually with minimal processing, and installed using traditional methods. Urban materials are composite or artificial, manufactured through industrial or prefabricated processes using advanced technology.

*Motivation and acquisition method – parcel occupation – materials and techniques*

Motivations, acquisition methods, land use patterns, materials, and construction techniques are interrelated criteria.

In the study area, we found diverse motivations behind residential choices. The method of acquiring land or a house directly influences decisions to move from urban to rural or peri-urban areas. Heritage emerged frequently, with varied contexts. Some were prompted by growing families needing more
space, while others sought personal reasons like closeness to nature, lifestyle changes, or transitioning
from communal to individual living.

"Our idea of moving to the countryside started a while ago, when both of us wanted to exit the system.
"It wasn't a choice, it was a search and a yearning(...). All our very romantic dreams have changed and
adapted to the reality we have seen living here for 9 years."(G. 2023)

In most cases, budget and the affordability of land and housing prices outside the city were decisive factors in the relocation decision: "First of all, we find it very expensive (Cluj), very crowded, lacking space, meaning what we can afford."(G. 2023)

For some participants, the community was a factor in choosing the location. While some went directly to communities they were familiar with, others hoped to integrate into a forming community. Those who did not consider this aspect relevant took other criteria into account, and this choice is reflected in their lifestyle and integration.

"We didn't buy a house. We bought the idea itself, with the community and everything that comes with it."(C. 2023)

"We thought that if we moved to the countryside, we should move somewhere where we know someone else."(T. 2023)

The motivations for moving to rural areas include lower property prices, community presence, nearby natural environments, proximity to friends or family, and teleworking opportunities. These motivations are influenced by local policies, such as village and commune mayors' approaches to administration and development, which can attract investments, new residents, or promote tourism.

In inherited or pre-built houses, plot occupation, materials, and architectural form are predetermined, with limited scope for changes. Extensions or second dwellings for family expansion can alter plot occupation. For unbuilt plots, whether inherited or purchased, there is greater freedom in these decisions, constrained only by urban planning laws and regulations.

## The Formal-Informal Approach to the Project – Plot Occupation – Materials and Techniques

During discussions and field visits, we discovered manifestations of informal approaches in various contexts and at different levels. These are related to the project's approach, the use of construction materials, and the organization of the construction process. For example, some projects were carried out without obtaining a building permit. While in some cases, the work is not noticeable from the outside and involves mainly interior reconfigurations, in other cases entire houses are built without the involvement of specialists. In other situations, specialists were consulted only to meet minimal legal requirements.

"Our idea was that we didn't have a project or a permit from the start, when we started the people who did the work told us we didn't need permits."(T. 2023) (extension and attic conversion without a building permit)

These approaches that bypass formal filters for project legitimization from a legislative standpoint question the role of architects in housing design. Architects are ignored or discredited, knowingly or unknowingly. The functionality, aesthetics, and efficiency of the projects can be discussed by comparing projects designed with and without the intervention of architects. The level of involvement and competence of the architects are also determining factors, but the response to this issue of legitimacy and professional recognition is given by the way the spaces are used by the end users.

The stage of interior design and decoration of the house was the most concerning for the majority of the interviewed interlocutors. In this phase, which involves building attachment and appropriation of
the place, the accessibility of available resources on the market (courses, programs, specialized publications) played an important role through which prior documentation was carried out.

"We didn't have a project; I took care of it myself and somehow I think I didn't do very badly. I was interested and took care of it directly (...) I made the decisions myself; I acted as the designer." (T. 2023)

## Informality in the Construction Process, Materials, and Techniques

Some participants avoided consulting specialists even in the construction process. Instead, they organized work gatherings with family and friends or collaborated with local craftsmen:

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

"We had work parties, 2-3, each lasting a day. The core team was my husband, my father, and his family; they built most of the house." (Adina S. 2023)

<caption>Figure 1 – Self-construction: Workshop with friends and family, Aiton village (Sztahura 2016)</caption>

Others took on the construction or furnishing work themselves. Involvement in a personal project can sometimes trigger a career change, evolving from self-managed DIY to specialized craftsmanship.

"He, who only knew how to work with a mouse and keyboard, started working with wood. Now he makes roofs and wooden structures but learned everything on his own, from scratch." (G. 2023)

Informality related to the construction materials involves how they are sourced or implemented: reusing stones from demolished buildings in the area, using wood from their own forest, and minimally processing raw materials into construction or furniture elements.

"We took down the barn because the foundation wasn't good; we reused the stone."
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

"We put wooden beams so they would be visible, and we tried to hand-plaster the walls so they wouldn't be straight and finished. We aimed for as many natural elements as possible. Thus, when people enter, they can feel at rest because everything natural is restful." (Andreea S. 2023)

<caption>Figure 2 – Hand-plastered walls, Soimeni village</caption>

Field experience showed that self-construction is present in a quarter of the analyzed cases, especially in informal transformations of the existing built environment. These architectures without architects have acquired significant social value, given how residents have appropriated their homes. They have questioned the value and legitimacy of the informal architecture produced. By taking full or partial responsibility for the design and construction work, these residents provided tangible evidence of their contribution to the existing built environment.

In contrast, we also found homes that were approached with formal projects at all stages and had a phased and standardized construction process. These are mainly houses built by private investors in private complexes or neighborhoods.

However, going through a formal and legal filter does not always ensure the aesthetic and functional quality of a project.

## 5. Architectural form

Architectural form, alongside materials and techniques, is a defining characteristic of architecture. Beyond reflecting social dynamics, form should be understood through its intrinsic logic and the efforts of its creators (Tapei 2014, 149). This includes analyzing volumetrics, architectural elements like walls, voids, rooflines, balconies, chimneys, and distinctive features such as window shapes, cornices, and dormers. Our aim is to delineate rural and urban forms, identify hybridity, and measure it through gradients of urbanity.

### Rural Form

Traditional Romanian rural houses feature simple volumes, minimal fenestration, and steep-pitched roofs covered in natural materials like straw or reed. As ceramic tiles became common, roof slopes decreased, evolving into simpler designs with 2-4 pitches. Recommendations for new rural constructions emphasize maintaining traditional volumes and shapes, using simple roofs with medium slopes, ceramic tiles, and minimal visible balconies (Răcășan et al. 2016). These guidelines suggest a hybridization, preserving rural aesthetics while incorporating subtle urban elements.

### Urban Form

Urban houses typically have larger volumes, multiple levels, spacious voids, terraces, and balconies, with terrace roofs popularized by the modernist movement. In peri-urban and rural areas, houses built
or transformed by city dwellers exhibit hybrid forms that reflect their imagination and different needs compared to genuine rural residents.

### The rural encoded by architectural culture

The concept of the rural idyll reflects an idealized vision of country life, shaped by cultural representations (Short, n.d.). This perception influences house designs, blending rural and urban aesthetics into a "neo-rural" style that merges idealized rural imagery with urban needs. This style, akin to the French Regional style, incorporates rustic elements that differentiate it from urban-style houses, which lack regionalist influences (Ostrowetsky and Bordreuil 1980, 80). Our goal is to identify degrees of hybridization between neo-rural and contemporary designs.

## 6. Building equipment and utilities

As contemporary lifestyles become more standardized, the distinctions between rural and urban areas become increasingly blurred. The expectations regarding comfort held by rural inhabitants now closely mirror those of urban dwellers (Tapei 2014, 63). The transition from rural to urban lifestyles mirrors the evolution of spaces, which have either transformed or vanished with significant technological advancements in household equipment. Stables transitioned into garages, laundries were replaced by washing machines, cellars evolved into refrigerators, and fireplaces gave way to radiators (Jacques Brun, Driant, and Segaud 2002c). These innovations streamlined and enhanced domestic tasks. Fluently distinguishing between rural and urban comfort levels involves examining criteria such as the presence of building networks, the purpose of specialized spaces within living areas, and the type of heating source utilized.

## 7. Agriculture in the Lives of the Inhabitants

The relationship between people and agriculture is a key criterion for identifying urban or rural lifestyles. Originally, agriculture was the quintessential element (Poulot 2015) defining rural areas, but these spaces have evolved from static agricultural landscapes to dynamic environments (Tommasi 2018). The decline of traditional farming practices has altered rural lifestyles (Tapei 2014, 63), leading to an ecological transition reshaping connections between inhabitants, agriculture, food, and landscapes (Leger and Mariolle 2018). This transition results from the urbanization of rural spaces and the adoption of urban lifestyles.

The transformation of productive spaces began in the 20th century with the agri-food system (Gorgolewski, Komisar, and Nasr 2011). Previously, town-village boundaries were marked by gardener-inhabited belts (Philipponeau 1956), who sold their produce at markets and were perceived as artisans (Vilan and Vidal 2018, 237). Today, agriculture near cities primarily consists of large grain fields, with land increasingly used for real estate development, expanding both urban and village areas.

The agro-industrial complex, fueling mass agriculture, faces opposition from the food sovereignty movement, which challenges the producer-consumer relationship. In Romania, the EcoRuralis association advocates for subsistence and semi-subsistence agriculture based on agroecological principles ('Asociația Tăranilor și Tărăncilor Din România', n.d.). Initiatives like the free seed market aim to safeguard local knowledge and identity. Urban-rural intersections are potential sites for policies promoting food sovereignty, seen as catalysts for transforming agricultural systems.

Gardens in urban areas are often collective, while rural gardens are typically individual family plots. There are two main garden concepts: traditional gardens focused on food production and playful gardens designed for leisure. Traditional gardens, common in rural areas, emphasize mutual help and knowledge sharing (Gallien, Boitard, and Delfosse 2012), with surplus crops preserved or shared. Leisure-oriented gardens, more prevalent in urban settings, serve recreational purposes, marking a social distinction (Darly 2018, 251). Urban gardens may also be community or educational projects. Gardens can also be classified by environmental factors, distinguishing between ecological or phytosanitary cultivation methods.
The residents' relationship with agriculture is defined by land usage, garden type, function, production method, and the presence or absence of animal husbandry.

## 8. Consumer Practices and Services

Housing encompasses practices beyond residence (Stock 2004), analyzed by demographers and sociologists in terms of material aspects, occupants' characteristics, and consumption practices. Improved standards of living have led to lifestyle homogenization.

Contemporary society emphasizes individualized behavior (Tapei 2014, 54), with personal fulfillment prioritized over collective norms (Tapei 2014, 55). Mass consumption offers access to similar goods across social strata, making items like refrigerators, dishwashers, and TVs common in households across Western societies (Tapei 2014, 62). Retail chains like Ikea further homogenize interior aesthetics (Jacques Brun, Driant, and Segaud 2002f), and families are more mobile than ever.

Food consumption shows a dichotomy: large chain stores offer immediate gratification, while community-supported agriculture models prioritize local quality. Urban consumption often involves commercial connections with producers, contrasting with rural self-sufficiency. Supply methods vary from producers' markets and supermarkets to community-supported agriculture projects, village shops, and street vendors.

Urbanization and changing family dynamics have led to the rise of proximity, personalized, and collective services, facilitating urban lifestyles and home management. Outsourcing cleaning and maintenance services reflects increased female workforce participation, middle-class enrichment, and advancements in maintenance techniques (Jacques Brun, Driant, and Segaud 2002b). This outsourcing affects family privacy, time management, skill transfer, and responsibilities (Jacques Brun, Driant, and Segaud 2002h). Engaging services is an urban behavior contrasting with rural self-sufficiency. Rural dwellers develop practical skills for independent living, such as gardening, cooking, cleaning, maintenance, and DIY tasks, which urban residents often avoid or delegate.

Urban leisure activities are often decentralized. Gardening, once a rural necessity, is now a leisure pursuit for city dwellers who seek to reconnect with nature and enjoy better food (Delfosse 2019).

## Plot Occupation - Materials - Equipment and Utilities - Agriculture - Consumption and Practices

Plot occupation in urbanity gradients is closely tied to fencing types and materials, soil utilization practices, and adopted rural or urban activities. Infrastructure availability significantly influences plot use, determining the necessity and function of annexes or specialized spaces.

In our analysis, property delineation was common, though exceptions were noted. For instance, a planned neighborhood in Băbuţiu initially omitted fences but later saw residents installing low wire mesh fences for privacy, blending with hedges. Conversely, a family in Șoimeni living near a forest had no need for boundaries, integrating their yard with the surroundings except for an animal pen. The only marked boundary is the animal pen (for goats).

Fences often reflect material choice and symbolic elements. Some delineate public and private spaces with urban materials, while others blend rural motifs reflecting personal connections and daily experiences.

## 9. Storage
Two contrasting storage concepts exist: one values privacy and secrecy, the other clarity and fluidity. These concepts are evident in rooms dedicated to storage (laundries, cellars, garages, attics) with walls, doors, and natural light, versus dispersed storage (cupboards, storage rooms, dressing rooms) with light walls, no natural light, and sliding doors (Garcias and Treuttel 1983). The arrangement and use of these spaces highlight differences between urban and rural living.

In rural areas, storage is crucial for household organization and food preservation during non-productive seasons. Traditional rural architecture includes exterior storage (Garcias and Treuttel 1983) like grain bins and barns, and interior spaces like attics, cellars, and pantries. Freezers are common for preserving large quantities of homegrown or purchased foods, reducing reliance on commercial chains. Wardrobes are a distinctive feature, symbolizing privacy and order (Bachelard 1957).

In urban settings, traditional family closets have been replaced by integrated storage solutions (Garcias and Treuttel 1983) like dressing rooms and built-in closets to optimize space. Attics and basements often serve as storage areas, especially when not converted into living spaces. This shift reflects the urban need for efficient space utilization.

## The Relationship Between Plot Occupation, Practices and Storage

The way a plot is occupied is closely linked to the practices of its inhabitants. Plot occupation reflects residents' practices, especially in rural areas where agricultural activities dictate yard organization. Our analysis of case studies showed varied situations: garden size and type depend on plot size, residents' availability, and goals such as subsistence, sales, or recreation.

Over half of respondents (18 out of 31) cultivate vegetables in planters, gardens, or greenhouses. For some, moving to a house included idealized agricultural aspirations that remained unrealized.

> "We started with this idea of 'how idyllic it will be,' because before moving, I wanted to have chickens and goats. Anyway, it's a problem since we don't eat meat and don't want to kill them (...) But concretely, we realized it's not for us." (T. 2023)

Others learned along the way and turned it into a lifestyle:

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

> "It's not even worth telling, I was pulling up the pepper plants and leaving the weeds. (...) I called the neighbor from down the road, who told me I had pulled out the peppers. Then I learned and started putting signs. (...) then I got a gardening manual. Now I know almost everything needed, not an expert, but close." (R. 2023)

<caption>Figure 3 – Greenhouse, Soimeni village</caption>

Producing one's own food significantly influences residents' consumption habits, fosters neighborhood relationships through seed, product, and knowledge exchanges, and strengthens community bonds. However, deeper connections require shared values beyond agricultural exchanges. Sometimes,
exchanges are made for money or services, which can lead to a subordinate relationship between the payer (the urbanite who moved to the countryside) and the service provider (the rural resident).

Residents generally shop at supermarkets or hypermarkets based on their needs, supplementing seasonal production or relying solely on these outlets. Some also use alternative sources like markets, local producers, or artisanal shops. Village shops serve as backup options due to limited goods and higher prices, occasionally collaborating with local producers. Mobile commerce is rarely utilized.: "There is a truck that brings bread three times a week." (V. 2023)

Consumption habits and supply methods directly affect storage solutions. Surplus agricultural produce is preserved in cellars, storage rooms, pantries, or freezers, depending on individual family practices. The proximity to stores also influences the amount of food stockpiled.

"From our garden, we eat during the summer or maybe we also put some in the freezer." (Adina S. 2023)

Infrastructure shapes plot occupation by necessitating specific equipment and outbuildings or influencing the use of existing ones. For instance, lack of access to sewers leads to septic tanks or treatment plants, impacting their placement on the plot. Such adaptations signify rural living, despite associated challenges.

Few residents engage in animal husbandry, reflected in the scarcity of outbuildings for livestock. Former agricultural structures are repurposed as studios, workshops, guest houses, garages, or storage. All visited houses have heating, indoor bathrooms, electricity, and internet, although one house used a sawdust-operated dry toilet. These amenities result from connections to public utilities or alternative solutions chosen by residents.

"I wanted to come to the countryside, but I didn't want to go back in time." (R. 2023)

The availability of public utilities influences home heating choices. In Vultureni commune, some houses rely solely on wood stoves for heating, requiring ample wood storage on the plot during winter. Houses located far from paved roads may park cars outside, extending private space into public areas symbolically.

## 10. Relations with neighbors

The close proximity between neighbors in the countryside fosters the development of intimate relationships, which are manifested through collaborative activities, themed gatherings, and exchanges of goods. Additionally, mutual assistance is a hallmark of rural communities: in harmonious and conflict-free cohabitation, neighbors readily lend a helping hand to one another, thereby fostering skill-sharing and resource pooling. These social bonds form the foundation of a network where resources and materials are mobilized and shared outside traditional commercial channels. The exchanges and lending practices among rural neighbors serve as alternatives to conventional economic systems.

The rise of mobile sociability has resulted in the weakening of local social ties, leading to a noticeable emotional disconnection from the neighborhood in contemporary urban life (Jacques Brun, Driant, and Segaud 2002g). Urban individualism fosters the formation of multiple communities organized around shared interests rather than geographic proximity.

## Results

In total, we analyzed 31 situations (F01-F31) from 8 different communes (Figure 4). Each case study has a worksheet containing information about the exterior and interior appearance of the house, plans, and excerpts from interviews on predetermined topics.

We used the following table (Figure 5) to centralize all the criteria in order to obtain a score for each case study. The table is divided into 5 columns, each representing a different gradient. The column on the left, equivalent to rural behaviors and representations, has the lowest score, while the column on the
right, specific to urban representations, has the highest score. Additionally, in each case, a score was
calculated for each criterion separately in order to graphically represent the results obtained.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4 – Case studies</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>Figure 5 – Criteria table</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">CRITERIA</th><th>RURAL</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>URBAN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="2">1. METHOD OF ACQUISITION</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">2. THE FORMAL - INFORMAL DYNAMICS IN PROJECT APPROACHES</td><td>2.1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE STAKEHOLDERS ENGAGED IN THE PROJECT'S DESIGN AND EXECUTION</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2.2. THE PROCUREMENT METHOD FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS BASED ON THEIR TYPE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2.3. PROJECT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2.4. THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS / THE WAY EXECUTION AND FITTING WORKS ARE PERFORMED</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2.5. THE LEVEL OF ADAPTATION TO SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS (NATURAL, CULTURAL)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="8">3. PLOT OCCUPANCY</td><td>3.1. PLOT ORGANIZATION SCHEME</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">MASINA</td><td>3.2. CAR TYPE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3.3. NUMBER OF CARS / FAMILY</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3.4. PARKING</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3.5. THE FREQUENCY OF CAR USAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3.6. TYPE OF ANNEXES AND HOW THEY ARE USED</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3.7. HEDGES (TYPE, MATERIAL)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3.8. SECURITY AND PROTECTION</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">4. MATERIALS AND BUILDING TECHNIQUES</td><td>4.1. MATERIAL TYPE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4.2. MATERIAL PRODUCTION METHOD</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4.3. MATERIAL IMPLEMENTATION TECHNIQUE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">5. ARCHITECTURAL FORM</td><td>5.1. VOLUMETRIC TYPE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">TYPICAL ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS</td><td>5.2. OPENINGS (TYPE, SHAPE, FINISH)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5.3. ROOF TYPE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5.4. EXTERIOR ELEMENTS / SPACES</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">MATERIALS AND COLOURS</td><td>5.5. WALLS</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5.6. ROOF COVERING</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5.7. DISTINCTIVE ELEMENTS</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">6. BUILDING EQUIPMENTS AND UTILITIES</td><td>6.1. CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6.2. THE FUNCTION OF SPECIALIZED SPACES</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6.3. HEATING SOURCE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">7. AGRICULTURE IN THE LIVES OF THE INHABITANTS</td><td>7.1. LAND USE PATTERN</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7.2. GARDEN TYPE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7.3. THE FUNCTION OF THE GARDEN</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7.4. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION METHOD</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7.5. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7.6. FARMING METHOD</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">8. CONSUMER PRACTICES AND SERVICES</td><td>8.1. CONSUMPTION TYPE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8.2. SUPPLY MODE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8.3. PROXIMITY AND PERSONALIZED SERVICES</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8.4. COLLECTIVE SERVICES (EDUCATION, HEALTH, CULTURE)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8.5. FREE TIME</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">9. STORAGE</td><td>9.1. SPECIFIC STORAGE SPACES</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9.2. SPECIFIC STORAGE VOLUMES</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">10. RELATIONS WITH NEIGHBORS</td><td>10.1. SOCIABILITY TYPE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10.2. INTERACTION</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6 – Urbanity Gradients of Case Studies</figcaption></figure>
# Types of Housing in the Peri-Urban and Rural Areas of Cluj

The territory we studied exhibits hybrid characteristics in several aspects. Firstly, villages and communes vary widely in their development and atmosphere, influenced by administration type and natural geography. Despite comparable distances from Cluj-Napoca, each locality has a distinct character. Some retain a rural ambiance, marked by natural features like hills or forests, while others show more urbanization, including collective housing projects and gated neighborhoods. Secondly, we identified diverse housing types emerging in peri-urban and rural areas around Cluj, shaped by local development patterns.

The type of housing has three components: one related to its production, one linked to the integration of housing into the social context, and one involving its relationship with space (Raymond 1984, 51–52). The three main types of housing discovered are:

## 1. New Houses in Residential Developments/Neighborhoods Built on the Outskirts of the City or Rural Localities (Figure 7)

These houses are often built on former agricultural land incorporated into urban areas through urbanization procedures. Designed according to investor vision, architect input, and urban planning regulations, they emphasize formal planning, architecture, and landscaping.

Uniformity in spatial layout and external appearance results from speculation on buyer preferences, targeting middle-class families with children. Homes typically include living rooms, kitchens, two bathrooms, two or three bedrooms, and parking spaces, organized on one or two levels. They feature private gardens or yards and are built as individual houses, semi-detached pairs or groups, or terraced units.

Semi-detached houses aim to reduce costs and land use, maintaining uniformity through standardized materials and construction techniques. The basic rule of producing these neighborhoods is the multiplication of predefined typologies in a number that satisfies investors' interests. Residents often transition from collective housing to private homes while retaining urban lifestyles, commuting for work. Social interactions within these neighborhoods foster community ties, though rural practices like gardening are limited.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7</figcaption></figure>
## 2. *New custom-built individually houses on available plots within the built-up core of villages (Figure 8)*

The second observed typology includes individually built houses within villages, alongside traditional or newer homes. These houses generally have similar interior configurations with our first typology, but differ in production and appearance due to residents' emotional investment in the construction process. Each house obtained a building permit, with varying degrees of formal or informal approaches to the project, reflecting residents' involvement and architect input.

Occupation of these plots often reflects rural practices such as gardening and consumption methods. The location, appearance, and occupation of these houses directly influence residents' lifestyles and aesthetics, integrating them into existing village contexts and communities. Moving into villages fosters a lifestyle closer to rural settings, emphasizing proximity to nature, community, and rural aesthetics. Sociability among neighbors within these villages is generally close-knit among residents of similar social backgrounds, with interactions between native villagers and newcomers often cordial yet superficial.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8</figcaption></figure>

## 3. *Old houses transformed through adaptation, extension, and attic conversion*

This typology includes two subcategories:

### A. Old houses that undergo minimal interventions (Figure 9) aimed at enhancing comfort, primarily by adding indoor bathrooms while preserving their original rural typology. These modifications often bypass formal authorization processes, involving independent planning and DIY techniques by residents.

Maintaining the rural appearance is prioritized, with residents appreciating and perpetuating traditional architecture using minimal interventions with traditional materials and techniques. Examples include exposing stone by removing plaster, enhancing rustic accents. Through this intention, new residents emphasize rustic accents and materialize their desire to take ownership of a home that once belonged to another family.
These houses are typically inhabited by couples without children, individuals living alone, or families seeking an alternative lifestyle. Their move to the countryside reflects personal aspirations to embrace rural living and integrate into the village's social fabric.

Residents value smaller, multifunctional spaces and complement indoor living with outdoor activities, adapting from urban apartment lifestyles to rural settings.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9</figcaption></figure>

*B. Substantial Extensions / Attic Conversions / Adaptations of Traditional Houses* into Contemporary Homes through Complete Transformation of the Initial Typology

This subcategory involves transforming old traditional houses into contemporary dwellings by expanding and diversifying specific spaces. Projects in this category begin with design, sometimes with architect involvement, while others rely on residents' own skills. Materials and construction techniques, whether traditional or standardized, adapt to the existing structure, often altering its original form significantly. These modified houses stand out from traditional rural homes, signaling social differences with local neighbors. In villages attracting urban relocations, they serve as models for village evolution.

The transformation enlarges volumes and introduces new functional areas like differential rooms, common areas, bathrooms, and storage. The transformation starts from one or two multifunctional rooms specific to rural living and evolves into a volume containing living spaces specific to contemporary, urban housing typologies. Residents import their urban lifestyle, reshaping their living environment.

In summary, this subcategory represents a notable shift of traditional rural houses into contemporary homes through extensive modifications. These projects not only alter physical structures but also introduce new social dynamics and functional possibilities, reflecting evolving rural-urban dynamics and lifestyle preferences.

## Conclusions

The emerging housing typologies in the peri-urban area are a consequence of transition policies from socialist to capitalist models. The unstructured development of the peripheries and peri-urban communes in Romania results from vaguely defined and poorly implemented housing policies during
the post-socialist period. The shift from predominantly state-controlled collective housing to the
development of individual housing, driven solely by private interests, occurred in an unplanned manner.
This urban-rural hybridization in the studied area is evident in the variety of housing typologies
discovered.

Analyzing case studies through the lens of urban gradient criteria helped us discover the specific housing production processes for each typology. The production process of a particular form of housing involves three distinct stages: relocation and acquisition, construction and adaptation, and appropriation of the dwelling and the actual space. Each of these stages can be attributed one or more criteria. Permissive legislation allowing the change of land use from agricultural to buildable has led to the emergence of real estate developments resembling villages within or adjacent to existing villages. The typology of residential developments in rural areas reflects a typological uniformity aimed at maximizing private investment returns. In this typology, the subjective aesthetic evaluation of the architectural product is exploited to objectively respond to existing construction recommendations and regulations. Most of these projects ignore a sustainable strategy for densification in these areas. In the few examples of developments that prioritize typological variety, community evolution, architectural quality, and residents' interests, emphasis is placed on creating relationships between public and private spaces.

The makers of this housing differ from the users. The first phase of the production process is entirely taken over by investors and architects, with the acquisition of these homes influenced by calculated marketing strategies. Buyers who acquire these houses intervene in the housing production process only during the furnishing and adaptation stage. This typology involves a high consumption of resources both in terms of land use and construction production, which runs parallel to the deterioration of the existing built environment in existing villages and communes.

In contrast to the first category, the construction of houses within the existing morphology of villages is most often initiated by residents, reflecting a diversity in architectural production specific to this typology. Although inserted among houses and plots that sometimes retain traces of rural living and specific agricultural production, the houses in this typological category are closest to a hybrid living. An urban-specific spatial configuration is dressed in an envelope that assimilates, imitates, absorbs, or interprets specific rural elements. By incorporating rural (and possibly local) elements in the appearance of the houses, there is an intention to continue the cultural heritage of the area, although their actual application remains debatable in many cases. The attitude specific to producing this type of housing approaches a sustainable approach, mainly due to the use of available land within an existing (r)urban morphology.

In the case of the third typology, the type of rural-specific housing no longer meets current comfort expectations and standards, leading to modifications driven by this need for adaptation. This typology is marked by a certain level of informality in every specific stage of the housing production process, with the producers and users of the housing overlapping. Housing is often perceived as a process, with these houses continuously changing and modifying according to the residents' needs. Residents feel empowered by their practical skills, enabling them to initiate a self-construction process at any time to expand or modify anything that no longer suits them. This typology represents a sustainable form of housing, particularly suitable for families detached from standardized lifestyles. The minimal adaptation of old houses has a direct impact on residents' lives and revitalizes both the buildings themselves and the built environment and native rural community.

Moreover, there is no system in place to support the sustainable preservation or transformation of the existing built environment in peri-urban and rural villages. Projects undertaken without building permits by certain residents, which address all aspects of life as a form of escapism from societal norms, raise questions about the role of specialists in planning the evolution of peri-urban territories.

The last two categories have the potential to become models for housing evolution in peri-urban villages and communes, but a system is needed to regulate them.
Bibliography

Alpoi C., Iacoboaea C., and Stăncu A. (2014) ‘Analysis of the Current Housing Situation in Romania in the European Context’. *Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences*, 2014.

‘Asociația Țăranilor Și Țărăncilor Din România’. n.d. Accessed 26 January 2024.
https://www.ecoruralis.ro/despre-noi/asociatia/.

Bachelard G. (1957) *La Poétique de l'espace*. Paris.

Bouchet-Bloancou G. (2020) *Préfabrication de l'habitat – Une Histoire Technique et Culturelle*. Paris: L’Harmattan.

C. Denisa. 2023.

Cloquet, B. (2013) ‘Vers Un Habitat Écoresponsable En Saône-et-Loire, Qui Privilégie Les Ressources Locales. Architectures Matérielles’. Grenoble: Université de Grenoble.

Darly S. (2018) ‘La Terre Pavillonnaire, Un Paysage Fertile Oublié’. In *Densifier/Dédensifier. Penser Les Campagnes Urbaines*. Marseille: Parenthèses.

Delfosse C. (2019) ‘L’alimentation : Un Nouvel Enjeu Pour Les Espaces Ruraux’. *L’Information Géographique*, 2019.

Dolean B., Bilașco Ș., Petrea D., Moldovan C., Vescan I., Roșca S., and Fodorean I. (2020) n.d. ‘Evaluation of the Build-up Area Dynamics in the First Ring of Cluj-Napoca Metropolitan Area, Romania by Semi-Automatic GIS Analysis of Landsat Satellite Images’. *Applied Sciences* 10 (21). https://doi.org/10.3390/app10217722.

G., Ana. 2023.

Gallien M., Boitard M., and Delfosse C. (2012) ‘Renouveau Des Jardins Potagers Entre Milieux Urbain et Rural ?’ *POUR* 3-4 (215-216): 321-32. https://doi.org/10.3917/pour.215.0321.

Garcias J.-C., and Treuttel J.-J. (1983) ‘L’évolution Des Espaces de Service Dans La Maison Individuelle. Le Placard Hypocrite Ou Les Infortunes Du Rangement’. Research report 46. Ministère de l’urbanisme et du logement / Secrétariat de la recherche architecturale (SRA); Centre de recherches méthodologiques d’architecture (CERMA). https://hal.science/hal-01887207v1/file/MC_BRAUP_0204_84.TXT1_001_BD.pdf.

Ghinea-Christu I. (2019) ‘The Phenomenon of Internal Migration and the Prospects of a New Type of Rural-Urban Housing’. *Argument*, no. 11.

Ghinea-Christu I. (2019) ‘Fenomenul Migraționist Intern Și Perspectivele Unui Nou Tip de Locuire Rural-Urbană’. *Argument*, no. 11, 127–44.

Gorgolewski M., Komisar J., and Nasr J. (2011) *Carrot City*. New York: The Monacelli Press.

Brun J., Driant J-C. and Segaud M. (2002)a. ‘Choix Résidentiel’. In *Dictionnaire de l'habitat et Du Logement*, 69-72. Paris: Armand Colin.

—(2002)b. ‘Entretenir Son Logement’. In *Dictionnaire de l'habitat et Du Logement*, 144-47. Paris: Armand Colin.

—(2002)c. ‘Formes Du Logement et Mots de La Maison’. In *Dictionnaire de l'habitat et Du Logement*, 186-91. Paris: Armand Colin.

—(2002)d. ‘Habitat et Ecologie’. In *Dictionnaire de l'habitat et Du Logement*, 214-19. Paris: Armand Colin.

—(2002)e. ‘La Conception Du Logement’. In *Dictionnaire de l'habitat et Du Logement*, 82-86. Paris: Armand Colin.

—(2002)f. ‘Le Décor Domestique, Une Mise En Scène de Soi’. In *Dictionnaire de l'habitat et Du Logement*, 107-10. Paris: Armand Colin.

—(2002)g. ‘Les Relations de Voisinage’. In *Dictionnaire de l'habitat et Du Logement*, 421-25. Paris: Armand Colin.

—(2002)h. ‘Les Services Au Domicile’. In *Dictionnaire de l'habitat et Du Logement*, 386. Paris: Armand Colin.

Leger J-M, and Mariolle B. (2018) *Densifier/Dédensifier. Penser Les Campagnes Urbaines*. Parenthèses.

Lucan J. (2021) *Habiter Ville et Architecure*. Lausanne: EPFL.

Mihăilescu V. (2011) ‘Comment Le Rustique Vint Au Village’. *Terrain* 57:96–113.
https://doi.org/10.4000/terrain.14368.

Ostrowetsky S., and Bordreuil J.S. (1980) *Le Neo-Style Regional*. Paris: Bordas.
Petrovici N., and Mare C. (2020) ‘Municipiul Cluj-Napoca Și Zona Metropolitană Cluj – Raport de Cercetare – Dezvoltarea Economiei Locale În Deceniul 2008-2018’. Cluj-Napoca: Centrul Interdisciplinar pentru Știința Datelor.

Philipponeau M. (1956) *La Vie Rurale de La Banlieu Parisienne, Etude de La Geographie Humaine*. Paris: Armand Colin.

Poulot M., (2015) ‘Être Ou Ne Pas Être Rural...Ou Quand Le Rural Se Décline En Ville Comme à La Campagne’. *POUR* 4 (228): 69–76. https://doi.org/10.3917/pour.228.0069.

R., Cristina. (2023)

Răcășan H., Șuteu C., Gingirof M. and Grupul rural al OAR (2016) ‘Ghid de Arhitectură Pentru Încadrarea În Specificul Local Din Mediul Rural. Zona Dealurile Clujului’. Ordinul Arhitecților din România. https://oar.archi/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ghid_de_arhitectura_zona_dealurilor_clujului_pdf_1510928522.pdf.

Rapoport, A. (1972) *Pour Une Anthropologie de La Maison*. Paris: Dunod.

Raymond, H. (1984) *L'architecture, Les Aventures Spatiales de La Raison*. Paris: Centre Georges Pompidou.

S., Adina. (2023)

S., Andreea. (2023)

Short B., n.d. ‘Idillyc Ruralities’. In *The Handbook of Rural Studies*, 1st ed., 133–48. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Soaita A. and Dewilde C. (2020) ‘Housing Stratification in Romania: Mapping a Decade of Change, Journal of Housing and Built Environment’. *Journal of Housing and Built Environment*, no. 36 (October). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-020-09788-8.

Soaita A. M. (2013) ‘Romanian Suburban Housing: Home Improvement through Owner-Building’. *Urban Studies* 50 (10): 2085–88.

Stock M. (2004) ‘L’habiter Comme Pratique Des Lieux Géographiques’. *EspacesTemps.Net (Online)*, 2004. https://www.espacestemps.net/en/articles/habiter-comme-pratique-des-lieux-geographiques-en/.

Suditu B, Nae M., Neguț S., Dumitrache L., and Gheorghilas A. (2014) ‘Suburban Landscapes in Romania from ,forting-up’ to ,informal-up’ and Limits of Public Action’. *European Journal of Science and Theology* 5 (10): 125–38.

Sztahura A. (2016) ‘Cum a Fost La Clacă’. *Fele-Apa-Fele-Viz* (blog). 6 September 2016. http://fele-apa-fele-viz.blogspot.com/2016/09/cum-fost-la-claca.html.

T. Andra. (2023)

Tapei G. (2014) *La Sociologie de l'habitat*. Marseille: Parenthèses.

Tommasi G. (2018) ‘La Gentrification Rurale, Un Regard Critique Sur Les Évolutions Des Campagnes Françaises’. Géoconfluences. http://geoconfluences.ens-lyon.fr/informations-scientifiques/dossiers-regionaux/france-espaces-ruraux-periurbains/articles-scientifiques/gentrification-rurale.

V. Lucia. (2023)

Vilan L, and Vidal. R. (2018) ‘L’orée Des Champs’. In *Densifier/Dédensifier. Penser Les Campagnes Urbaines*. Marseille: Parenthèses.

Virdol D. (2005) ‘Dynamics of Housing Stock in Romania – between Politics and Policies’. *Human Geographies – Journal of Studies and Reaseach in Human Geography* 9 (2). https://doi.org/10.5719/hgeo.2015.92.6.