Bucharest is a vibrant, modern city which – while it has its problems – is increasingly like any other European capital. The young (and the not so young) enjoy going out in its cafes, bars, pubs, restaurants, clubs, discos and live music venues, much as their counterparts do in almost every other city in the developed world. So it is disconcerting when journalists from liberal newspapers in Western Europe describe Bucharest’s rejuvenated Old Town – the buzzing entertainment area increasingly serving as the heart of Romania’s capital – as ‘all a bit homogenous and uninteresting.’ The presence of designer stores is seen as evidence of Bucharest’s soullessness.
We wonder what it is they would have preferred to find in Bucharest? Empty shops with long queues of locals outside hopefully waiting for a delivery of fresh milk? Teenagers offering to buy your jeans and asking about the latest Beatles records? Or simply the no-go area that was Old Town until entrepreneurs discovered its potential and turned it into the throbbing district it is today? Would that have been less ‘homogeneous’ and a bit more ‘interesting’?
Bucharest was much less homogeneous and far more interesting for the visitor in those days
We have always been stunned by how some travellers (not just to Romania) can be genuinely disappointed to find that people in traditionally poorer countries actually have the same aspirations (and a desire to enjoy the same kind of nightlife) as they do.
For they are missing the point.
The fact that Bucharest is increasingly affluent, increasingly modern and increasingly just like every other European capital is something to be celebrated. Compare Bucharest now with the Bucharest of 20 years ago. Then ask locals – and only locals, for nobody else’s opinion (including ours) is of any relevance – what they prefer: the austerity of then or the abundance of now? The nights when the lights went off at 8pm or the 24-hour city we have today?
We are fairly confident we know the answer.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
I guess that when people see Prague and Budapest and then come here they feel it is a bit of a dump. For those who live here Lipscani is a triumph.
I think the more interesting question is why was Romania’s form of Communism so austere? How did Ceausescu, a man with a fourth grade education, rule so harshly for so long? Where were the mass protests? How did a fun loving, fashion loving, luxury car loving culture let a peasant rule over everyone? I mean c’mon! How was a fifth of the historic center bulldozed? Weren’t there at least a few architects who were Communists advising Ceausescu that the historic architecture had to stay? I don’t think anyone would argue that Romanian was going down an oddball path in the 1980s. I find it very hard always to understand how other Communists followed Ceausescu and let him do what he did. I mean Prague and Budapest were not bulldozed. It is strange to think how Ceausescu oppressed people here so much and yet all Romanians want–more really than many other Europeans–is to party and drive the nicest cars available and to show off the nicest clothes money can buy.
I think the Guardian was looking for a place with an edge. As soon as lots of cafes open up and there are crowds the edge is lost like anywhere else. Walking around Vienna for instance is quite boring if you are looking for adventure. Bucharest of course has a ways to go before it looks like Vienna, but gradually the center will indeed become less interesting compared to what it once was.
“Romanians want to show off the nicest clothes money can buy.”
Davin me old mucker! You’re miles off with that comment pal. Romanians only wear FAKE designer clothes. 99% of what you see Romanians wear is fake, FACT!!!
Just watched the Guardian clip with Benji and have to say what an absolute load of rubbish. It seems that even supposedly good journalism can stoop to such reliably obvious stereotypes when ‘doing travel’. Including that picture of Vlad Tepes in the report took the biscuit. His description of Bucharest’s old town being ‘homogenous’ was a bit confusing for me. Surely this means something that is ‘the same’? In that case is he saying that Lipscani is all the same? Or at the very least the same as the rest of the world? This seems quite a throwaway description to me and completely lacking in any knowledge of the changes the area has gone through in the last few years.
I’m not sure what this 24-hour city is you speak of. At 4 AM, central Bucharest is just as much a ghost town as any other city at that time of night.
You clearly don’t know where to go! Anyway, you get the point.
I know where to go at 4am…BED!!!