# Facing Post-Socialist Urban Heritage From Systematization to Suburbanization: Mapping Hibridity and Urbanity Gradients in Romanian Rural Housing

Diana Galos

► To cite this version:

Diana Galos. Facing Post-Socialist Urban Heritage From Systematization to Suburbanization: Mapping Hibridity and Urbanity Gradients in Romanian Rural Housing. International Conference DO-CONF – Facing Post-Socialist Urban Heritage, Department of Urban Planning and Design, Faculty of Architecture, Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME), and the Foundation for Urban Design, Budapest., Oct 2025, Budapest, Hungary. pp.124-135. hal-05532516

HAL Id: hal-05532516

https://hal.science/hal-05532516v1

Submitted on 2 Mar 2026

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.

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

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# From Systematization to Suburbanization: Mapping Hibridity and Urbanity Gradients in Romanian Rural Housing

Diana Andreea GALOȘ (Pogăcean)

PhD student
Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning Cluj-Napoca
Technical University of Cluj-Napoca
Center for Housing Research, LAVUE-CNRS, University of Paris Nanterre
diana.galos2@gmail.com

## ABSTRACT

Before communism, Romania's economic lag behind much of Europe reinforced the agricultural and rural character of villages, where housing was mostly vernacular. During communism, industrialization and urban migration were prioritized, leaving rural areas behind and casting villages as outdated spaces for those left out of the socialist vision. The 1974 systematization law aimed to urbanize villages through demolition and reconstruction. This included centralized village planning and standardized collective housing, introducing urban-style architecture into rural areas—often without essential urban infrastructure. The designs blended modern materials with traditional forms to reflect local identity.

After 1989, political change halted most of these plans, leaving few built examples. In the post-socialist period, peri-urban development expanded as car ownership increased and state control weakened. Today, especially around major cities like Cluj, middle-class families are moving to nearby villages, driven by frustration with urban life and rising housing costs.

A hybridisation of urban and rural architecture and lifestyle is evident in each of these stages, and the question we pose is: how has the political context over time influenced the diffusion of urban elements into Romania's rural space, and how can this hybridisation of housing be quantified?

The methodology involves analyzing Romanian housing laws over time, identifying rural housing forms by period, and defining criteria to measure urban influence in rural areas.

Through this, we aim to gain a deeper understanding of the factors that have shaped today's rural living patterns and explore future development perspectives.

## KEYWORDS

Urban-Rural hybridisation, housing project-types, urbanity gradients
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1 Type-project for individual house (Popescu-Negreanu, 1952)</figcaption></figure>

# 1. Introduction

Since the 20th century, the history of housing in Romania has been marked by changes in the relationship between urban and rural areas in terms of production. These dynamics have manifested in architectural and spatial transformations in individual and collective housing, as well as in the social, economic and political factors that have shaped these changes. The aim of this article is to clarify how policies and social processes have influenced Romanian rural and peri-urban areas during the communist and post-communist periods. To fully understand this topic, we will review Romania's historical and political context since the 20th century, closely tracing the evolution of the urban-rural relationship over time.

# 2. Context:

Before communism, Romania's economic lag behind much of Europe reinforced the agricultural and rural character of villages, where housing was mostly vernacular.

During the communist period, industrialization led to accelerated urban growth (Virdol, 2005, p. 209) and rural-urban migration (Ghinea-Christu, 2019, p. 127). Housing was built en masse, sacrificing quality (Alpoi et al., 2014, p. 11). Villages were marginalised, and the 1974 systematisation law sought to urbanise them through demolition and standardised collective housing, without adequate infrastructure but with traditional forms and modern materials.

After 1989, political change halted most of these plans, leaving few built examples. In the post-socialist period, suburban development expanded with the increase in the number of cars and the weakening of state control. Today, middle-class families are migrating from cities to their surrounding villages, due to frustrations with urban life and high housing prices.
The term *suburbanization* originated in early 20th-century America, linked to car ownership and the ideal of a detached house away from urban noise. Unlike in the U.S., where the middle and upper classes moved intentionally to the suburbs, in Europe suburban areas often hosted those excluded from the city (Aydalot & Garnier, 1985). Adopted later in other languages, including Romanian, the term generally refers to urban expansion beyond city limits. In Romania, it has been used since the pre-war period (Benedek, 2019) to describe the spread of urbanization into surrounding rural areas, even though suburban forms differed greatly from the American model.

Cities and villages have become hybrid spaces, especially in suburban areas. Villages have lost much of their autonomy, as many residents now depend daily on metropolitan centers for work, consumption, and leisure. With capitalism and consumerism, new aspirations emerged: rural inhabitants increasingly seek urban lifestyles, while city dwellers dream of combining urban advantages with the comfort and tranquility of a country home (Galos, 2021).

## 3. Methodology

Hybridisation between urban and rural architecture and lifestyle is evident in all the analysed stages, and raises the following questions: How has the political context influenced the diffusion of urban elements in rural areas of Romania over time, and what criteria can be used to quantify this hybridisation of housing?

The proposed methodology includes a chronological analysis of the Romanian legislative context, identification of rural housing forms that emerged in each historical period and definition of criteria for measuring the diffusion of urban elements in rural areas.

The conclusions will consider the differences identified between periods, as well as the role played by political and legislative directions in shaping patterns of rural housing.

## 4. The Communist Period

### 4.1. Legal Context

Three laws have shaped the development of towns and villages.

Decree 545/1958 established clear boundaries for towns and prohibited construction outside them. It replaced urban planning with systematisation for socialist reconstruction.

Law 19/1968 introduced the expropriation of land outside buildable areas and prohibited the transfer of ownership, requiring construction to comply with systematisation within two years.

Law 58/1974 limited the expansion of localities by imposing height standards (a minimum of two levels in villages and five in cities) and aiming to raise the standard of living in rural areas by urbanising villages with potential, while prohibiting construction in areas without prospects.

This law was the main instrument of socialist reconstruction through demolition and modernisation, with many villages being destroyed to make way for apartment blocks, markets and shopping centres (Virdol, 2005, pp. 213–214).

By the end of the 1980s, the rural phase of systematisation had begun, resulting in the abolition of 3,931 villages and the relocation of their populations to areas with
economic potential. The model of two-storey apartment blocks was promoted in order to save agricultural land (Țiu, 2014, p. 13).

The rural urbanisation projects of the 1980s involved apartment blocks without basic utilities, which people had to provide themselves (Micu, 2012). The intention was “to uproot the population, forcibly relocate them, and destroy heritage and traditional communities for the sake of standardisation” (Şerban, 2020).

When the implementation of systematisation was announced, resistance from intellectuals and villagers grew, as it would have destroyed many villages. In 1989, the 'Operation Villages Roumains' movement in Belgium mobilised 2,200 European municipalities in support of Romanian villages (Şerban, 2020).

## 4.2. Rural Housing type-projects

During the communist period, housing policy evolved alongside industrialisation, promoting standard designs for both individual and collective dwellings.

The regime criticised the old system, arguing that the bourgeoisie and industrialists sought maximum profits without economising on construction. This justified the use of fewer materials and more efficient designs, with the argument being that the regime was building much more and had to avoid waste: “We have no interest in wasting materials, we have to save, because we build 10 times more than the bourgeoisie.” (Silvan, 1954).

The three types we will consider in this chapter are type-projects for: Individual housing (with rural influences) in urban or rural areas, extensions of individual dwellings in rural areas, and collective housing in rural areas.

### 4.2.1. Individual dwellings influenced by rural architecture in urban or rural areas.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 Type-project for individual house (Bergleiter et al., 1951)</figcaption></figure>

Decision 758/1951 required the Ministry of Construction to develop standard designs for such dwellings using locally sourced materials. Beneficiaries received loans and contributed 30% of the costs in the form of labour, money or materials. People's Councils allocated plots of land with gardens and orchards. The projects included houses with one to three rooms, adapted to the different stages of family life, with multifunctional spaces (Popescu-Negreanu, 1952). Room sizes were
empirically determined, allowing for minimum space for furniture and circulation. Indoor toilets were only installed where there was a sewerage system; water came from wells and showers were excluded to reduce costs.

Materials used included stone for foundations, fired brick, wood for floors and roofs, simple finishes and shuttered carpentry.

Although these typologies were designed for the city, they incorporated rural elements such as gardening, local materials and vernacular aesthetics. The transition to urban life was marked by the replacement of thatch and shingles with interlocking tiles. The projects aimed to help the rural population adapt to urban life by incorporating Romanian characteristics and traditional forms to express socialist content through national aesthetics (Bergleiter et al., 1952).

In order to meet the high demand for housing, there was a shift from craftsmanship to industrial construction. Standardisation reflected uniform lifestyles, families and housing (Adler and Grigorcea, 1955).

### 4.2.2. Extensions of individual dwellings in rural areas

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3 Project type for attic house in rural area (Pruncu, 1956)</figcaption></figure>
This type of dwelling was popular with self-builders as it offered an economical construction solution.

The design retained the layout of the non-attic type in the series of individual designs created by the Institute for Standardised Construction Design (IPCT). The hallway formed the central part of the house, with one section used for cooking and dining and the other used as a living room. A single flight of stairs connected the ground floor to the attic, ensuring easy access to the bedrooms and the outdoor toilet on the ground floor. These dwellings were designed for areas without sewers or running water. Two variants were proposed for this type of dwelling, each with two recommended material options. The first variant involved brick masonry on the ground floor, load-bearing walls in the attic, wooden floors, roof trusses and partition walls, and thermal insulation with reeds. The second variant replaced the wooden floors with monolithic reinforced concrete (Pruncu, 1956).

### 4.2.3. Collective housing in rural areas

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4 Proposal for collective rural housing – Alba County, perspective (Stancu, 1982)</figcaption></figure>

In the 1980s, state-owned dwellings in rural areas were built according to type projects. These had a minimum of two floors and were built on small plots of 200–250 m² of land where houses had been demolished. The plots included space for gardening (Law 58/1974). These 'block houses', intended for workers, promoted 'bulldozer' urbanism, with two to six apartments on one or two levels, complete with a basement, attic, stove or central heating (Latiş, 1982). From 1979 onwards, projects had to be adapted to the specifics of rural areas, incorporating varied locations and local architectural solutions that combined modern and traditional materials (Stancu, 1982).

This resulted in a hybrid architecture, with urban typologies incorporating rural elements such as verandas, porches and carpentry, as well as new materials instead of traditional ones. This raised questions about authenticity and local specificity.
# 5. The post-socialist Period

## 5.1. Legal context

After the collapse of communism in 1989, economic liberalism, followed by neoliberal capitalism, led to the withdrawal of the state from housing policies and the promotion of private property (Dan and Dan, 2003), a common phenomenon in post-socialist countries. In Romania, the changes liberalized mobility, access to property, and construction (Suditu et al., 2010).

The political transition favored suburbanisation, initially through a lack of regulations, then through permissive legislation in spatial planning. Satellite residential areas have sprung up around cities, chosen for their proximity to points of interest and to avoid urban real estate pressure. The lack of public coordination has led to chaotic transformations, environmental destruction, and uncontrolled densification (Suditu et al., 2010, p. 81).

Without coherent strategies, unauthorized construction appeared before the necessary infrastructure was in place.

Law 350/2001 allowed the expansion of built-up areas and the change of agricultural land use through local urban development plans (PUZs), facilitating private, self-financed, and often abusive urban development (Dutu, 2015), raising questions about the ethical principles of urban planning (Peylet et al., 2007).

Emergency Ordinance 7/2011 attempted to limit these derogations by amending Article 32, but Parliament rejected the main amendments, maintaining derogatory urban planning under pressure from private interests (Carrière, 2024).

## 5.2. Rural and suburban housing types in post-socialist Romania

During my doctoral study, I analyzed 31 houses (case studies) located at the rural-urban interface in the suburban and rural areas of Cluj. First, I selected the localities based on a series of criteria relevant to the research topic. Localities were chosen according to building permits issued between 2017-2022, media visibility, urban planning documentation, and direct site observations. Fieldwork combined statistical data collection, mapping, and document analysis with interviews and on-site observations. Second, case studies were selected to capture diverse suburban and rural situations around Cluj, considering location, infrastructure, housing type and integration, family characteristics, community influence, construction methods, and ties to the city, prioritizing variety over strict statistical representativeness.

Based on the 31 case studies, I identified three distinct typologies, classified according to production methods, social integration, and spatial relationships. These typologies represent hypothetical models that, through future comparison, could be validated as specific residential typologies characteristic of the suburbanization phenomenon in Romania.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5 Rural and periurban housing typologies in Romania</figcaption></figure>

### 5.2.1. New houses in residential complexes/neighborhoods built on the outskirts of cities or rural areas

Built on converted agricultural land, these are private projects with uniform architecture, tailored to the preferences of middle-class families (houses with 2-3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, parking). The houses are detached, semi-detached, or terraced, offering more space and private yards than apartments. Residents maintain an urban lifestyle, commuting daily, and the rural connection is limited to neighborly socializing.

### 5.2.2. Newly built houses on available plots in the built-up areas of villages

Detached houses built on new or family-owned land, with permits but with varying involvement of architects and residents. The homes combine urban elements with rural traditions (gardening, local consumption). Social relations are close between neighbors of similar status but more distant from the locals.

### 5.2.3. Old houses are adapted through either minimal interventions or major extensions.

Old houses that have been adapted through minimal interventions retain their rural character while being discreetly adapted for urban comfort (e.g. the addition of bathrooms), often without permits and using DIY methods. These houses are favoured by unconventional families or individuals seeking a close connection to nature and community, thereby supporting the revitalisation of rural heritage.

Significant transformations, such as major extensions and attic conversions, change the original typology, adapting the dwelling to modern urban styles with the help of architects or independently. These new volumes contrast with rural architecture, highlighting social differences and altering the relationship with the house's space and aesthetics.

## 6. Criteria for establishing urbanity gradients
The diffusion of urban characteristics into rural areas, as reflected in the housing types studied, is evident. This hybridization can be assessed across three main dimensions:

- Material-spatial: construction materials and techniques, architectural form, building equipment, and utilities.

- Functional: plot organization, agricultural activities, and storage methods.

- Social: formal and informal networks, as well as neighborly relationships.

On a scale from rural (1) to urban (5), the characteristics of each criterion can be assigned a score.

Below, we describe what we mean by each of these criteria.

## 6.1. The formal-informal dynamic in project approaches

In each of the two major periods analyzed, we observed that legislative measures influenced a formal or informal direction in terms of how housing projects were approached. Both approaches existed in housing projects during the communist period and in those of the post-socialist period. For this reason, we will include the criterion of the approach to the project in the proposed list of criteria for establishing gradients of urbanity in housing.

Housing has historically been a reflective process rooted in vernacular practices, with rural societies adapting to nature (Jacques Brun et al., 2002) through informal, intuitive design. Today, construction involves multiple experts, leading to a formalized process. Vernacular architecture, often seen as primitive, is shaped collectively (Lucan, 2021, p. 18) and harmonizes with local conditions (Rapoport, 1972), while scholarly architecture follows structured, expert-led methods.

In peri-urban areas, these approaches blend: homes often bypass full formalization, with DIY changes adapting to family needs. Despite regulations, bricolage reflects personal freedom and attachment to place. Once stigmatized, rural architecture has evolved under industrial influence to prioritize comfort, aligning more with urban standards.

## 6.2. Plot organisation

The organisation of plots, the use of cars (number and type), outbuildings and fences reflect lifestyle and the degree of urbanisation.

Traditionally, rural Romanian households centred around a courtyard, garden and orchard to support agriculture (Mihăilescu, 2011). Today, however, rural living is changing, with more and more non-farmers adding garages and carports.

Urban-rural migration often occurs for financial reasons (Tapie, 2014, p. 57), reflecting a desire for clean air, property, and autonomy. Cars are essential in rural areas and influence land organisation.

The number and type of cars varies with distance from the city, influencing garage locations. Agricultural outbuildings are increasingly being converted into leisure spaces, and fences are changing from natural materials to urban security systems such as intercoms and cameras.

## 6.3. Building Materials and Techniques

Beyond their technical and aesthetic qualities, building materials also have a sociological dimension, which is essential for understanding the degree of urbanization of rural and peri-urban areas.
Until the 19th century, rural dwellings used local materials, maintaining vernacular homogeneity (Jacques Brun et al., 2002). However, access to cheaper and more efficient materials led to the disappearance of this geographical determinism (Lucan, 2021, p. 26).

Prefabrication influenced by modernism dominates construction today (Bouchet-Bloancou, 2020, p.9). Traditional materials include stone, wood, reeds, straw, and earth. Chronological evolution has led from handcrafted natural materials to standardized industrial materials, which bring urban sophistication but limit innovation and the use of local resources.

The degree of urbanity of a material depends on: the type of material, the method of production, and the technique used to put it into operation. Rural materials are natural, handmade, with minimal processing. Urban materials are composite or artificial, industrially produced or prefabricated.

## 6.4. Architectural form

The architectural form, together with materials and techniques, defines architecture. It reflects both the internal logic of the construction and the intentions of the authors (Tapie, 2014, p. 149). This includes volume, voids, roofs, balconies, chimneys, cornices, and windows.

By rural form we refer to traditional houses that have simple volumes, few windows, and high roofs made of reeds or straw.

The urban form is included in urban houses that have large volumes, floors, terraces, and balconies.

## 6.5. Building equipment and utilities

As lifestyles become more standardised, the differences between rural and urban areas are becoming less pronounced. The level of comfort desired by rural residents is approaching that of urban residents (Tapie, 2014). The evolution of household appliances has transformed spaces radically: barns have become garages, and washing machines have replaced laundry rooms. Refrigerators have replaced cellars, and radiators have replaced stoves (Jacques Brun et al., 2002). In order to distinguish between rural and urban comfort levels, we can analyse municipal services, interior space usage and heating sources.

## 6.6. Agriculture in the Lives of the Inhabitants

The relationship between inhabitants and agriculture is an essential criterion in distinguishing between rural and urban lifestyles. Agriculture, once defining rural life (Poulot, 2015), has been affected by the decline of traditional practices and the urbanization of rural areas (Tapie, 2014), leading to an ecological transition that is changing the relationship between people, food, and landscape (Leger and Mariolle, 2018).

Peri-urban agriculture has been transformed: vegetable gardens on the outskirts of cities have been replaced by monocultures and real estate developments.

Urban gardens are often collective and recreational, while rural ones are typically individual and focused on food production. Traditional rural gardens rely on mutual aid and knowledge sharing (Gallien et al., 2012), with surplus preserved or shared. Urban gardens may be community-based or educational, marking a social distinction (Darly 2018, 251). Gardens vary by land use, function (productive or
leisure), cultivation method (ecological or phytosanitary), and presence of animal
husbandry.

6.7. Storage

There are two opposing concepts of storage: one focused on privacy (cellars,
attics, pantries), the other on clarity and fluidity (dressing rooms, built-in cupboards)
In rural areas, storage spaces are essential for organizing the household and
preserving food, including exterior (Garcias and Treuttel, 1983) and interior annexes.
Freezers are frequently used in rural areas. In urban areas, spaces are integrated
(dressing rooms, cupboards) to optimize the home, while attics and basements
become additional storage areas.

7. Conclusions

In the early days of communism, rural houses were built informally without architects, resulting in poor quality due to a lack of materials. Following the systematisation law, architects emerged as central figures, reflecting the ideas of Le Corbusier. Standards came from the city and the new vernacular had to be adapted to industrial society, with buildings being produced in large quantities (Lucan, 2021, pp. 26–28).

In practice, the promised amenities (running water and sewage systems) were rarely achieved in rural areas: houses had outdoor toilets, stoves and communal kitchens. Living conditions were similar or even worse, with cramped interiors and significantly reduced gardens and outbuildings. Rather than modernising the countryside, these interventions degraded the quality of housing. In contrast, collective housing in the city was complemented by rural elements such as urban gardens, which increased comfort.

During communism, the urbanization of rural areas was clearly regulated
through laws, enforcement norms, and guidelines. Every hierarchical level
contributed to this regulation (the state, professional organizations, and design
institutes), yet few constructed traces remain in rural areas.

In the post-communist period, rural urbanization was encouraged and marked
by a legislative vacuum: in this context, fewer rules led to more construction.

The three typologies identified in the peri-urban area of Cluj provide a
framework for interpreting the phenomenon and serve primarily as working models,
useful for understanding the diversity of suburbanization processes and for guiding
comparative research in other regions of the country. The proposed criteria for
measuring gradients of urbanity offer an analytical tool but require further clarification
and methodological development in the future.

The hybridisation of various housing typologies can be measured based on
specific criteria. The main contribution of the article is that it opens a discussion for a
more nuanced typology of rural and peri-urban housing in Romania. In a future
research phase, filtering the analyzed typologies through this set of criteria can help
classify them according to different degrees of urbanity and provide a clearer
perspective on the influence of legislation on the integration of rural and urban
elements.
## 8. References

Adler, L., Grigorcea, N., 1955. Despre problema proiectării tip. Revista Arhitectura.

Alpoi, C., Iacoboaea, C., Stănescu, A., 2014. Analysis of the current housing situation in Romania in the European context. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences 43E.

Bergleiter, I., Aldan, L., Horjescu, P., 1952. Locuințe muncitorești proeictate în conformitate cu Hotărârea Consiliului de Miniștri nr. 758/1951. Revista Arhitectura.

Bouchet-Bloancou, G., 2020. Préfabrication de l'habitat – Une histoire technique et culturelle. L'Harmattan, Paris.

Carrière, J.-P., 2024. Les défis de la sobriété foncière: quelles réponses en France et en Roumanie ? Varia 52, 1–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.47743/lsgdc.v52i1.02

Dan, A.N., Dan, M., 2003. Housing Policy in Romania in Transition: between State Withdrawal and Market Collapse. Presented at the International Conference, Sibiu.

Dutu, M., 2015. La planification d'aménagement et d'urbanisme stratégique en Roumanie. Cahiers du Gridauh 79-99.

Gallien, M., Boitard, M., Delfosse, C., 2012. Renouveau des jardins potagers entre milieux urbain et rural ? POUR 3-4, 321-332. https://doi.org/10.3917/pour.215.0321.

Galoș, D., 2023. Hybrid housing at the interference between the urban and the rural in Romania – The political and economic influence on housing forms and lifestyles. AIP Conf. Proc. 2928, 030001. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0170464

Garcias, J.-C., Treuttel, J.-J., 1983. L'évolution des espaces de service dans la maison individuelle. Le placard hypocrite ou les infortunes du rangement (raport cercetare No. 46). Ministère de l'urbanisme et du logement / Secrétariat de la recherche architecturale (SRA); Centre de recherches méthodologiques d'architecture (CERMA).

Ghinea-Christu, I., 2019. The phenomenon of internal migration and the prospects of a new type of rural-urban housing. Argument.

Jacques Brun, Driant, J.-C., Segaud, M., 2002. Habitat et écologie. Dictionnaire de l'habitat et du logement.

Latiș, E., 1982. Actualitatea locuințelor cu puține niveluri și număr redus de apartamente. Arhitectura.

Leger, J.-M., Mariolle, B., 2018. Densifier/dédensifier. Penser les campagnes urbaines. Parenthèses.

Lucan, J., 2021. Habiter ville et architecure. EPFL, Lausanne.

Micu, C., 2012. A unique policy of urbanization. The rural systematization in Romania. NEC Ștefan Odobleja Program Yearbook 2011-2012 235-237.

Mihăilescu, V., 2011. Comment le rustique vint au village. Terrain 57, 96-113. https://doi.org/10.4000/terrain.14368

Murgescu, B., 2010. România și Europa. Acumularea decalajelor economice (1500-2010). Polirom, București.

Peylet, R., Chapuis, J.-Y., Jegouzo, Y., Groupement de recherche sur les institutions et le droit de l'aménagement, de l'urbanisme et de l'habitat (France), 2007. Le droit de l'urbanisme de la Roumanie et son intégration dans l'Union Européenne.

Popescu-Negreanu, Gh., 1952. Proiecte tip de locuințe individuale. Revista Arhitectura 7-15.
Poulot, M., 2015. Être ou ne pas être rural... Ou quand le rural se décline en ville comme à la campagne. POUR 4, 69-76. https://doi.org/10.3917/pour.228.0069.

Pruncu, N., 1956. Locuințe individuale mansardate în mediul rural. Revista Arhitectura.

Rapoport, A., 1972. Pour une anthropologie de la maison. Dunod, Paris.

Răzvan Voinea, A., 2019. Idealul locuirii bucureștene: familia cu casă și grădină. Studio Zona, București.

Șerban, N., 2020. Turiștii străini se interesează de soarta satelor românești (1989). Revista Bibliotecii Academiei Române Anul 5.

Silvan, I., 1954. În legătură cu proiectarea secțiunilor tip de locuințe. Revista Arhitectura.

Stancu, I., 1982. Proiectarea locuințelor în mediul rural. Arhitectura.

Stănculescu, F., 1925. Satele nou formate în legătură cu reformă agrară. Arhitectura.

Suditu, B., Ginavar, A., Muică, A., Iordănescu, C., Vârdol, A., Ghinea, B., 2010. Urban Sprawl characteristics and typologies in Romania. Journal of studies and research in Human Geography 4.

Tapie, G., 2014. La sociologie de l'habitat. Parenthèses, Marseille.

Țiu, I., 2014. Ceaușescu și problema sistematizării rurale. Sfera Politicii 179.

Virdol, D., 2005. Dynamics of housing stock in Romania – between politics and policies. Human Geographies – Journal of studies and Reaseach in Human Geography 9. https://doi.org/10.5719/hgeo.2015.92.6

1988. Revista Flacăra.