2. The PREM project, Tranylvania. 2003-2006. INTBAU participation and contribution. The genesis of INTBAU Romania.

4. The fortified church. Viscri - Deutch Weiskirch, 1280. © Riksantikvaren. Biertan - Bierthâlm, 16 th century, UNESCO World heritage site. © Riksantikvaren

5. Copsa Mare –Grosköpisch 1320-1400. © Riksantikvaren

6. Overview of Biertan - Bierthälm, © H. Fabini, Saxon Churces. Biertan - Bierthâlm, 16 th century, UNESCO World heritage site. © Riksantikvaren

7. Törzburg - Bran © Riksantikvaren

8. Törzburg - Bran http://members.chello.at/freshminds/sbneu/index.htm

9. PREM project – 3 tracks Track 1 32 houses finished. Another 15 houses have been partially repaired or the work is in progress. 8 training courses were held and 31 workers trained. A training venue is established (INTBAU). Track 2. Model farm Laslea. Fully renovated, equipped, staffed and operational as of 2005. Courses and training as of 2004. Inner Laslea valley. © Riksantikvaren Track 3. 3 working seminars, cum architect student competition, organised by the municipality of Medias. In the Municipality of Laslea 2 workshops were organised by INTBAU Scandinavia and was the start of INTBAU Romania. The first concerned development and plans for Laslea village The second focused on the wish to develop agro tourism by offering accommodation and sightseeing in the municipality and the close environment (which includes the 2 UNESCO World Heritage Sites, Biertan and Sigishoara).

10. THE MUNICIPALITY OF LASLEA. THE LASLEA VILLAGE.

13. Del 1.

14. Del 2.

18. Village workshop - charrette Why did we need a village workshop? –Things were moving slowly at the Town Hall –If we could get no input from the municipality we would get it by our own. Why did we invite INTBAU Scandinavia to organise this work shop? –The project architect was Mr. Arne Sødal, member of INTBAU Scandinavia. –Intbau Scandinavia proposed to organise the WS. It was good value for money. –The quality turned out to be excellent.

19. The long term consequences of involving INTBAU? Mr. Sødal and Mr. A. Engh organised the workshop. The need for a training venue and office became evident. The first steps towards a rental agreement for House 344 was made. Mr. A. Sødal, Mr. A. Engh, A. Neag, have the contract with the owner. The paperwork to start INTBAU Romania was set in montion. The genesis of INTBAU Romania was started. Many students were recuited from the Medias workshops / architect competitions. Mr. A. Sødal, Mr. A. Engh pushed this project forward on their own initiative.

20. The traditional house

21. The modern but traditional house.

22. A Roma settlement, Laslea.

23. Figure 5. Proposed development low cost social housing - overview. Development of Node 2. Northern side of village, at entry from turnoff from main road. Presently site is makeshift gypsy settlement. To the right a run down former workers housing block. Can with minor financial means be brought up to minimum standard. Plan for low cost communal houses for the socially disabled as presently set in motion by the by Municipality. Target, bring social hosing, improved sanitary conditions; i.e. washing facilities. Figure 6. Detailed view of upgraded workers flats at north end of social housing village proposed development

24. A Roma settlement, Laslea.

25. Proposals for upgrade and safeguard of buildings; court between Hospital and the new Saxon church. One of the nodes is the complex of House of Culture (behind church), the Saxon Church; the old tower and the hospital. Results to be achieved with a minimum of investments and use of local manpower.

26. court between Hospital and the new Saxon church. Renovation of place outside the church.

27. court between House of Culture and 12 century fortified tower. © Riksantikvaren / INTBAU The complex of the old tower, Saxon church and House of Culture is proposed restored and a new building added. New building in same emplacement as old demolished church. Site of demolished church picture on left above, new building drawing to the right.. The new building and the whole complex could house a youth hostel, a restaurant, activity rooms for youth activities, a booking service for agro-tourism, etc. The new building also serves as support to the tower, which is badly in need of restoration.

28. Figure 9. River crossing and junction. Bridge, open air water delivery and washing / facilities improved. Communal / public shower, permanent market with stalls are new elements. Area cleaned up. Market stalls above bridge on right bank. Market area presently a vacant lot. Such facility requested by population. © INTBAU, Riksantikvaren.

29. Figure 11. Proposal 2. New building matching in proportions in empty lot Comments: On the traditional but modern.

30. Municipality of Medias - Mediasch

31. The historic urban planning seminars with the Municipality 2003 – the historic center square and the new market 2004 – historic court yards and facades, 2005 – The historic centre; the old monastery, the medieval walls

32. Winning model from architect student competition Franz Ferdinand place, Medias, May 2003

33. Area of East tower and fortification wall. Medias, May 2005. © T. Nypan / Riksantikvaren

34. What we did not like or want

35. More from the INTBAU work.

36. Typoplogy and intervention studies. Example of typoplogy and intervention studies. © INTBAU, Riksantikvaren

37. Typoplogy and intervention studies Example of typoplogy and intervention studies. © INTBAU, Riksantikvaren Illustrations from planning: Map Neudorf and Floresti with house types indicated in colours. © INTBAU, Riksantikvaren

38. Typoplogy and intervention studies.

40. Building rehabilitation.

41. INTBAU, establishing a permanent training venue Laslea House 344 future training centre, MET INTBAU joint restoration works started fall 2005. © Riksantikvaren

42. INTBAU training venue, 2006.

43. Now used for INBAU training seminars. Last in September 2007.

44. Rehabilitation method - Work priority definitions Developed by Riksantikvaren and architect. Mr. A. Sødal categ ory Starting condition house / property Relevant interventions – order of priority C 1. Good maintenance condition. Only normal yearly maintenance work needed Front facades, drainage, down pipes, gate, stucatures, C 2. poor maintenance condition, but suffer no structural damages. 1. Damaged building elements: roofs, drainage, down pipes, gate, side walls, windows etc. 2. Esthetical elements: painting facades, restoring front façade stucature. C 3. poor maintenance condition and suffer from structural damages. 1. Repair of structural damages (fallen down roof, falling out of fundaments, caving in of cellar vaults, cracking of facades and long term damages caused by moisture and root). 2. Repair of other damaged building elements: : roofs, drainage, down pipes, gate, side walls, windows etc. 3. Restoration of esthetical elements (painting of facades, front façade stucature). C 4. in bad need of attention and maintenance to arrest the (rapid) and advanced decay through existing damages to the house. Only arresting actions are applied. The objective is to arrest further decay of the building fabric to safeguard house for future repairs; C3.intervention.

45. Building rehabilitation. Training and creating employment. Creating skilled manpower for building rehabilitation. Distributing income and fostering local development. © Riksantikvaren

46. Right: Courtyard before work. Left: A finished court-yard. © Riksantikvaren

47. Priests house. Before work May 2002 © MET September 2003 © Riksantikvaren New gate and entry door. Down pipes repaired, 2006.

48. Street row traditional houses.

50. New tendencies

52. INTBAU Workshop on eco- tourism and cultural heritage 1. The trekking group 2. A group mapping interesting events 3. A group mapping interesting sites 4. A group looking at cultural and natural heritage sites and documenting a village profile based on the findings

53. Walking routes drawn up during the workshop; illustrates the need for detailed topographical maps.

55. E N D.