Scientific Papers Series B Horticulture

to be the tallest building in the world, but whenit was finally done (on the outside), in 2012 butnow it is only the 47 th tallest one.Figure 23. Ryugyong Hotel (Google images)Meanwhile the city, as the entire countrystruggle with the famine, but Pyongyang ismaybe the outmost political landscape. AsPhilipp Meuser describes Pyongyang, the NorthKorean psycho regime’s capital, as “arguablythe world’s best-preserved open-air museum ofsocialist architecture” (Meuser, 2102)RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSAs we stated in the previous chapters, cities allover the world have lost or have never had akind of urban memory. Either it’s about demolitions,reconstructions, wars or any other kindof events that triggered urban traumas, manycities have lost parts of their culture, traditionsand memory. “All cultures and all societieshave built and developed themselves throughdemolitions.” (Choay, 2011)But what are the similarities or the differencesof this destruction and rebuilding cycling acts?The most clear and common feature of all thisreconfiguration of historical cities in order tobecame political statements is the “bigness”.We don’t refer only the impressive dimensionsand richness in decoration of the buildings, butalso the inhuman scale of the urban spaces –plazas and avenues – that were created. Whatstays as the common tool for the totalitarianlandscapes is the presence of huge urban voids,conceived as parade spaces and calculated tocontain impressive parades and popular, moreor less enthusiastic, gatherings.361On another hand the obliteration of an “embarrassing”past was hidden under the newmonumentality. In order to create this new spacesthe old cities’ cores, layered expressions ofthe previous political periods and social values,were wiped out. It was not only imposing anew political landscape but also it was all abouterasing the old ones. It is like all the dictatorswere trying to stay as unique, solitary figures oftheir national histories. It was an entire historyrewriting in stone.Also it is quite similar that it was one person’svision that was imposed over the city. Eventhough sometimes specialists were consulted,the vision was clearly imposed by the politicalleader(s) and the technical advice was necessaryjust in order to find the best solutions forthat visions mise-en-place.What differ the political landscape is the architecturallanguage that was chosen in order toexpress the political new values. Even if we canfind a strong penchant for the classical expression,modernism was also part of the game.We can witness a subtle balance between theruptures with the past, sustained by the newarchitectural expressions, and the need ofhistorical quotations as legitimation tools. Alsothe classical architecture seem to be more fittedfor the monumental expressions while themodernist forms are staying insufficiently richin expression means and less sumptuous andimpressive. And impression is all it is about thepolitical landscapes. Out of this balance betweenmodernity and classic result the originality(or the lack of it) in the analysed urbantotalitarian landscapes. Also it is their historicaland aesthetical value. If Napoleon III’s urbanorder, the Russian modernist avant-garde andMussolini’s fascism have their unchallengedplaces in the architecture and arts history it isdifficult to imagine the Romanian, Chinese orKorean edifications entering the aestheticalhistory but as sort of freak expressions ofpolitical regimes, sort of power-story-tellersarchitectural Disneylands.Another difference to be noticed is the balancebetween monumental buildings erecting and themore social-oriented projects. Thus, inHaussmann’s project the rebuilding of Paristook in charge equally the monumentalbuildings, boulevards and places but the entirecoherence of the project was realised using