Architecture, cultural values and politics: the case for Sofia

Journal of Social Sciences Vol. VIII, no. 3 (2025), pp. 74 - 86 Fascicle Social Science ISSN 2587-3490 Topic Arts and Design eISSN 2587-3504 Journal of Social Sciences September 2025, Vol. 8 https://doi.org/10.52326/jss.utm.2025.8(3).06 CZU 72.025.3:008:342+711.4(497.2-25) ARCHITECTURE, CULTURAL VALUES AND POLITICS: THE CASE FOR SOFIA Lino Bianco *, ORCID: 0000-0001-8779-2351 University of Malta, MSD 2080 Msida, Malta * Corresponding author: Lino Bianco, [email protected] Received: 07. 15. 2025 Accepted: 08. 29. 2025 Abstract. Recalling a doctoral study undertaken at the University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy, Sofia, this article focuses on architecture, cultural values and politics in contemporary Sofia. It addresses urban landscapes and cultural heritage legislation in Bulgaria with specific emphasis on immovable and intangible culture. It concludes by arguing for mapping the city’s monuments of cultural value, addressing its urban challenges, and positioning this capital amongst Europe’s leading capital cities. Keywords: Sofia, urban planning, cultural heritage, cultural heritage value, monuments, intangible culture, spirit of place, phenomenology. Rezumat. Reamintind studiul de doctorat la Universitatea de Arhitectură, Inginerie Civilă și Geodezie din Sofia, acest articol se concentrează pe arhitectură, valori culturale și politică în Sofia contemporană. Acesta abordează peisajele urbane și legislația privind patrimoniu cultural în Bulgaria, cu accent special pe cultura imobiliară și intangibilă. Articolul se încheie cu un argument pentru cartografierea monumentelor de valoare culturală ale orașului, abordând problemele urbane și poziționând această capitală printre principalele capitale ale Europei. Cuvinte cheie: Sofia, urbanism, patrimoniu cultural, valoare de patrimoniu cultural, monumente materiale, monumente imateriale, spirit de loc, fenomenologie. 1. Introduction During the Communist regime, Sofia’s urban core was destroyed to make way for the modern city centre which included the Central Universal Store (TSUM), the Sheraton Hotel and the Communist Party Headquarters. Post Second World War developments tore apart the soul of the place, rendering it sterile and replacing humanity with technology. This can be illustrated through urban planning enhancements of major infrastructural works and public buildings. Historical photos of Lions’ Bridge (Figure 1), Eagles’ Bridge (Figure 2) and the National Theatre (Figures 3 and 4) demonstrate how Sofia developed over approximately a century. The argument put forth is not, and is not intended to be read as, a plea for a nostalgic or a romantic approach to planning. It is a call for a phenomenological approach to urban planning in Sofia whereby, in Norberg-Schulz’s words, “human identity presupposes the identity of place” [1, p. 22]. L. Bianco 75 Journal of Social Sciences September, 2025, Vol. 8 Figure 1. Lions’ Bridge: (top) former bridge in 1879 [5], (middle) the paving of the bridge in the first decade of the twentieth century [6] and (bottom) the bridge at present (online version is in colour). 76 Architecture, cultural values and politics: the case for Sofia Journal of Social Sciences September, 2025, Vol. 8 In tackling architecture, cultural values and politics in contemporary Sofia, this article addresses urban landscapes and local cultural heritage legislation, focusing on immovable and intangible culture. It concludes by arguing for (i) the mapping of the city’s culturally valuable monuments, (ii) rising to meet its urban challenges, and (iii) positioning Sofia amongst Europe’s leading capital cities. This article is a follow up to a recent publication on the phenomenology of urban planning in Sofia [2] whose content formed part of an unpublished doctoral thesis [3, pp. 181–196; 4, pp. 75–83]. Figure 2. Eagles’ Bridge: (left) in the 1910s [7] and (right) in the 1980s [8] (online version is in colour). Figure 3. National Theatre: (left) between 1910–1920 [9] and (right) at present (online version is in colour). Figure 4. The setting of the National Theatre: (left) between 1910–1920 [10] and (right) as at present (online version is in colour). L. Bianco 77 Journal of Social Sciences September, 2025, Vol. 8 2. Urban landscapes There are a number of landscapes within a city. Urban planners talk of townscapes, cityscapes, roofscapes, cultural landscapes, and so on. These are all tangible phenomena which are important characteristics of a given place. They all help to orient and identify oneself within a space. This is an important dimension to the environmental nature of a place. Another significant aspect is generated by intangible cultural assets – costumes, folk dances, games and sports – which are nowadays protected by law in Bulgaria. Prior to the process of globalisation and synchronisation with Western capitalist culture – primarily mass-media driven – less information and peer pressure to conform to stylistic fashions were present. Photos taken during the interwar period (1919–1939) illustrate a typical family from Sofia village (Figure 5, left) and another from the city centre (Figure 5, right). These families can be easily distinguished by their respective dress code. The former is recognisably closer to costumes associated with rural settings, while the latter wore outfits that bore similarities to those worn in the towns and cities of the Balkans. The urban dress code is only remotely associated with that of the vernacular village areas. Figure 6 (left) illustrates a young woman from the city in a sitting room at the turn of the twentieth century. This type of interior is more in line with the new influences from the Continent. The most significant interior, and one which is congruent with those of other royal courts in Europe, is the throne room of the Royal Palace, dating from the same period (Figure 6, right). This throne room – a symbol of power and governance – communicates the values the new political establishment wanted to convey. The significance of folklore and public culture since Sofia was made the capital of Bulgaria was not limited solely to themes such as national costumes; it extended to traditional dance and sporting activities. Figure 5. A Bulgarian family: (left) from Sofia village, 1920s [11] and (right) from Sofia city, 1920s [12] (online version is in colour). With the establishment of the Kingdom of Bulgaria in 1908, an immediate need was felt to initiate civil engineering works and erect public buildings to support the administrative and social infrastructure of the capital. Priority was given to establishing national monuments, not only to facilitate identification and orientation within the city but also to convey the values of the new political establishment. Two such building works – both of which are existentially tangible but phenomenologically intangible – are Alexander Nevski Cathedral (Figure 7) and the monument to the Tsar Liberator (Figures 8 and 9). The former edifice was ranked in 2009 as the top urban sight in the city by primary school children [15: 24]. 78 Architecture, cultural values and politics: the case for Sofia Journal of Social Sciences September, 2025, Vol. 8 Figure 6. (Left) A young woman in an early twentieth-century interior [13] and (right) the Throne Room, Royal Palace, Sofia, early twentieth century [14] (online version is in colour). Both buildings are physical landmarks which symbolically convey the traditions and values the Bulgarian nation had long yearned for, namely the country’s liberation from half a millennium of despotic foreign oppression under the Turkish yoke and suppression of the culture and spirit of Bulgarians. Both successive governments and the public, local and foreign, respected these monuments and what they stand for. They were not imposed on society but reflected the collective memory and identity of all Bulgarians. National monuments erected by the state during the socialist period also serve as landmarks which the locals and foreigners associate with Sofia. Two such examples are the National Palace of Culture (Figure 10, left) and the Monument for the Soviet Army (Figure 10, right). In 1993, Sofia City Council resolved to destroy the latter, but it was saved from destruction – a fate which had previously fallen on other national monuments from the same period – mainly due to opposition mounted by the Bulgarian Socialist Party, although the monument was partially removed in December 2023. The mausoleum of Georgi Dimitrov (Figure 11, left) was demolished in 1999 (Figure 11, right), while the statue of Lenin (Figure 12, left) was replaced by a statue of Sofia, the symbol of the city (Figure 12, right). The removal of these monuments – in particular the destruction of the mausoleum, which took place a decade after the fall of communism (although it was presented through the media as a collective impulsive decision) – reads more like a political agenda of members of government at the time. Figure 7. (Left) Aerial view of Alexander Nevski Cathedral in 1926 [16] and (right) Alexander Nevski Cathedral at present (online version is in colour). L. Bianco 79 Journal of Social Sciences September, 2025, Vol. 8 Figure 8. Monument to the Tsar Liberator: (left) at its inauguration on August 30, 1907 [17] and (right) as it stands today (online version is in colour). Figure 9. Aerial view of the Monument to the Tsar Liberator (circled in red) which is located in front of the National Assembly: (left) as in 1926 [18] and (right) as at present (© Google Earth) (online version is in colour). Figure 10. (Left) The National Palace of Culture and (right) the Monument for the Soviet Army as in May 2021 (online version is in colour). 80 Architecture, cultural values and politics: the case for Sofia Journal of Social Sciences September, 2025, Vol. 8 Figure 11. Georgi Dimitrov Mausoleum: (left) in the 1980s [19] and (right) during its destruction in 1999 [20] (online version is in colour). Figure 12. (Left) The statue of Lenin [21] and (right) the statue of Sofia as it stands today (online version is in colour). 3. Cultural heritage legislation The criteria regulating contemporary and future spatial planning policies for Sofia, as in other settlements, is regulated by the country’s political priorities. The relationship between planning and politics reflects the agenda of the government. The same applies to the city’s heritage. The significance of monuments of culture runs through the political agenda. One development which affected spatial planning in Sofia was the introduction of the Cultural Heritage Act in 2009 [22]. This legislation, which “introduced a new integrative concept for cultural heritage and sets up a new national system for protection, management and sustainable use” [23], replaced the Cultural Monuments and Museums Act [24] and reflected the priorities of environmental protection. What is significant in this act is the introduction of the notion of “cultural values”, a concept included in international charters and conventions relating to protection and sustainability of cultural heritage. In the context of Bulgaria, it suggests an interesting conceptual leap in dealing with culture. The Bulgarian government started to take into consideration both tangible phenomena (buildings and monuments) and intangible phenomena such as oral traditions, folklore, popular games and sport. The cultural heritage values stated in the Cultural Heritage Act, categorised in terms of tangible and intangible phenomena, are tabulated in Table 1. As L. Bianco 81 Journal of Social Sciences September, 2025, Vol. 8 can be inferred from this list, the Cultural Heritage Act identified eighteen cultural heritage values. With respect to immovable cultural heritage values, each is in turn classified in terms of its cultural and social significance into one of the following four categories: global significance, national, local and ensemble value. The criteria for inclusion in each of these categories are given in Table 2. Some of the significant tangible and intangible cultural heritage values were discussed in [2] whereby conclusions were drawn about their role and meaning in the context of the city of Sofia, both with respect to its image and its history. 4. Immovable monuments of culture The list of immovable monuments of culture as acknowledged by the Cultural Heritage Act currently and in use by the Old Sofia Municipal Enterprise – an enterprise founded in 1998 “to investigate, collect, preserve and manage any movable and immovable cultural heritage in Sofia Municipality” [25] – includes monuments of culture within the territory of Sofia Municipality and in the historical centre (the historical centre of Sofia – ancient Serdika and the medieval Sredets – was declared an archaeological reservation in 1976 [26]). The categorisation of these monuments, in terms of their significance and the number of monuments in each classification, is given in Table 3. The criterion used by Old Sofia Municipal Enterprise for defining the historical centre of the city was used to complete the tabulation. The list of monuments of culture of national value in Sofia city is included in [27]. From this list it is evident that the concentration of cultural assets is in the city centre. Knowing accurately the area occupied by these sites and their buffer zones one can compute 1. the density of monuments of cultural heritage in Sofia, 2. the effective area occupied by said monuments, and 3. their buffer zones as a percentage of the total superficial area of the city. Only the medieval-dating Boyana Church, located on the outskirts of Sofia, is listed by UNESCO as a site of world heritage significance [28]. Table 1 Cultural heritage values listed in the Bulgaria’s Cultural Heritage Act of 2009 [22] Tangible Phenomena Intangible Phenomena 1. On land, underground, underwater archaeological sites and reserves 1. Oral traditions and language 2. Historical sites and complexes 2. Literary and fiction heritage 3. Architectural sites and complexes 3. Customs, rituals, ceremonies, feasts and beliefs 4. Ethnographic sites and complexes 4. Music, songs and dances 5. Park art and landscape architecture 5. Folk medicine 6. Natural heritage* 6. Cultural ethnologic traditions 7. Industrial heritage 7. Folk games and sports 8. Works of fine and applied arts 9. Folk crafts 10. Documentary heritage 11. Audio-visual heritage * including anthropological remains discovered during field research, and remains of paleozoology and cultivated plants. 82 Architecture, cultural values and politics: the case for Sofia Journal of Social Sciences September, 2025, Vol. 8 Table 2 Categories of immovable cultural heritage values (based on [22]) Category Criteria for inclusion Global significance Monuments included in UNESCO World Heritage List National value Archaeological reserves and other cultural heritage values with exclusive importance for the culture and history of the country Local value Monuments connected with the culture and history of settlements, municipalities and regions Ensemble value Monuments that support the spatial characterisation and architectural typology of the group of cultural heritage values to which they belong 5. Intangible manifestations of culture Important manifestations of intangible heritage (Table 1) are nowadays protected by law. The implementation of the Cultural Heritage Act was entrusted to the Ministry of Culture, the National Institute for Monuments of Culture and other agencies such as the Old Sofia Municipal Enterprise. These bodies are responsible for compiling data on such manifestations for eventual inclusion of a thematically itemised list. This requires political commitment beyond the enactment of legislation. A budget must be allocated (i) to recruit people with a range of expertise, (ii) to fund scholars from various disciplines to undertake professional studies and assessments, and (iii) to compile a database of the findings. These are the foundations required to compile a list of intangible cultural assets. The development of a cadastre for intangible cultural heritage, in parallel with the list of immovable monuments of culture, will make it possible to plot them all on a basemap of Sofia. This will facilitate greater appreciation and a more inclusive comprehension of the soul of the Bulgarian nation as it has evolved through history. The Cultural Heritage Act should be read in the spirit of the law, namely that of preserving and conserving immovable and intangible heritage. In this context, this legislation should be allowed to cater for immovable heritage which is associated significantly with intangible cultural values, such as Alexander Nevski Cathedral and the Tsar Liberator monument. Table 3 Monuments of culture in Sofia (based on [29]) Level of significance Number of monuments Remarks (Municipality) (Centre) International 3 Boyana Church with a reserve and guarded zone surrounding it National 323 142 Within the municipality, 101 are archaeological sites and 222 are buildings and/or complexes; within the city centre, 19 are archaeological sites and 123 are buildings and/or complexes Local 771 706 16 of which have been removed from the list