HOW TO (NOT) MODERNIZE BRUSSELS
Apdil Kadir BostanARCH 510: METHODOLOGY IN ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN STUDIES
Bilgi University 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction 3
2. Brussels: capital of everything 3
2.1. Bruxellization 5
2.2. The icons of Bruxellization 6
2.3. Manhattan 7
3. First urban battles 9
4. ARAU and changes in urban policies 11
4.1. ARAU loses power and credibility 12
5. The arrival of the new generation 13
5.1. DISTURB wants architectural quality 14
6. Conclusion 15
7. References -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
1. Introduction
How can a city be destroyed? Perhaps because of a natural disaster or by bombing from an enemy country? These are undoubtedly the causes that come to mind at first. Otherwise, what else could cause the destruction of entire neighborhoods and force people who lived there to move and live far from their home. Unfortunately, the city of Brussels was the victim of another kind of destruction. After the Second World War, the authorities of the city decided to exercise a new modernism after the 1958 Universal Exhibition. As a result, popular districts with different architectures, especially magnificent art nouveau buildings, including projects by Victor Horta, were destroyed to be replaced by monofunctional and often ugly towers, not pleasant to the sight without any architectural quality. In this text, I will explain what really happened and why the city of Brussels ended up with urbanistic scars. Also, I will demonstrate the position and the reaction of the inhabitants and especially the architects towards these multiple "massacres" that took place during the 1960s and 1980s and show how powerful can the people be against the authorities and the impacts that they can have on others.
2. Brussels: capital of everything
Before explaining what the term ‘Bruxellization’ means, this essay will start by stating another urbanistic changes that have taken place in Brussels. These changes occurred shortly before the First World War, towards the end of the 19th century, in the 1880s, to be more precise, under the reign of the second Belgian king, Leopold II, also known as the ‘Urbanist King.’ ‘L'architek’ is the term used to define the urban modifications that the city underwent. This period's important projects were the Palace of Justice, designed by Joseph Poelart (Belgian architect who was also a member of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts of Antwerp). The construction of the palace meant the destruction of an entire district (district of Marolles) and an avenue, inspired by the Haussmanian avenues that can be found in Paris, which was crossing the city from north to south over the Seine, which was buried and therefore covered. The inspiration for Paris came from the admiration that King Leopold II had for the French neighbors' capital, and he wanted to transform his capital into a small Paris. (Doucet, 2012)
Then comes the post World War II period, between 1960s and 1980s, Brussels undergoes significant transformations in its urban landscape. But why did this happen? What were the reasons for these drastic changes that took place in the city in a brief period of time?
The main reason is Brussels's status as a city; as you should know, Brussels is the capital of Belgium and the French and Flemish communities in the country. But the most important thing is that it also serves as the capital for the European Union and the Atlantic Alliance, making it a magnet for large companies and a vital financial center at the international level. Therefore, it is the administrative headquarters of large banks and large companies, which sometimes even set up production units.
Since 1967, Brussels has been the main seat of the European institutions, serving as a center for the European Parliament meetings and other international organizations. It is also home to the European Commission and its administration. So, Brussels is a bit like the brain of the human body, all the decisions concerning the European Union are taken there, and then the findings are implemented in the rest of Europe. All this has led to thousands and thousands of civil servants, diplomats, experts, and press members, Belgian or foreigner, coming to settle in the capital's metropolitan area. The arrival of all these people and companies has caused a high demand for offices and new housing in the city. (Wynants, 2015)
Fig.2.1. Important administive buildings in Brussels Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_Bruxelles Capitale.jpg?uselang=fr / http://archive.corporateeurope.org/brussels_large.html (Last access: 20/01/2021)
2.1. Bruxellization
Here are why Brussels had gone under such changes and caused the emergence of the neologism ‘Bruxellization.’ This term appeared after that the city was destroyed, massacred (as often described by many architects, historians, and even by the inhabitants of Brussels) because of the modifications on an immense scale of particular districts. These changes were applied around the important road and railway infrastructure works that were put in place in the middle of the city. In cooperation with the political world, the developers and the private sector took charge of the changes. And these changes occurred without taking in any way the opinion of the population who were the primary victims of this urban massacre. Unfortunately, the inhabitants, waiting for a valid justification for what was happening in their city, heard practically the same answer over and over again. That answer was, the town had to modernize itself and to achieve this, it was necessary to follow the urban planning principles that were found in the Athens Charter1 put in place by CIAM. (Comhaire, 2012)
The charter contains the essential principles of the functionalist urban planning of the modern movement, which were:
Housing must be in high buildings to allow more sunlight
Constructions should be spaced to free up the ground for large green areas. The industrial and housing sectors must be separated from each other and be independent. Finally, the streets must be differentiated according to their destinations, i.e., residential street, promenade street, transit street, main roads must not be similar or have the same properties.
The city of Brasilia, founded in 1957, was designed by Lucio Costa (Brazilian architect and urban planner) and by Oscar Niemeyer (Brazilian architect and designer). It is often shown as an example of applying the principles of the Charter of Athens.
1
The Athens Charter was proposed during the fourth CIAM, which took place during a cruise between Marseille and Athens in 1934 and was then written and published anonymously by Le Corbusier in 1942.
2.2. The icons of Bruxellization
Several authors place the phenomena of Bruxellization in a precise space time, the period between 1955 and 1970. During this period, three major urbanization projects were implemented in the city: the first dates from 1958, the year of the Universal Exhibition. The proposal was to have a periphery in the form of a tunnel, an urban highway, and flyovers. These intentions prove the Brussels administration's desire to give priority to automated traffic rather than to pedestrians or bicycles. (To this, we can also add the inauguration of the rail network crossing the city from North to South and the opening of the Central Station in 1952. This project left a massive scar in the middle of the town).
Another icon, one of the most important one during the period of Bruxellization, the one that attracted the lightning not only of the inhabitants of Brussels and the Belgians, an important Art Nouveau building was destroyed This destruction was heavily criticized by architects and people who had interest in Art Nouveau, all over the world. In 1965, despite the many protests shown against this project, one of the most beautiful Art Nouveau buildings designed by Victor Horta, “La Maison du Peuple, was demolished and replaced by an office tower.
Fig.2.2. Important new urban projects in the city
Source: Google Maps
2.3. Manhattan
And finally, in 1967, the project that ‘destroyed’ the life of thousands of Brussels residents, the one that haunted the inhabitants of the capital of Belgium, the ‘Manhattan’ project Inspired by the CIAM but also by the financial districts found notably in the United States, hence the name ‘Manhattan.’ The goal was to transform the city's northern neighborhoods into a kind of ‘Wall Street.’ There were two men behind this project, Paul Van den Boeynants and Charly de Pauw. Often seen together, they were very often called ‘the demonic duo.’ During the 1970s, these two main actors of the city's modernization were given other nicknames, such as ‘the crocodile and the king of parking lots’. These terms are not made up out of nothing since Paul Van den Boeynants was a politician and an entrepreneur who earned his fortune from the meat industry. And Charly de Pauw was the CEO of a large parking company and a real estate developer. (Doucet, 2012)
As mentioned earlier, the Manhattan project's goal was to bring a financial district to the capital, which would be understandable if there was room in the city to accommodate it. But Brussels is a very dense city with very little free space (apart from the urban parks that can be found almost everywhere in the town), so it was decided to destroy popular districts to be able to carry out the project.
The districts concerned were ‘Ville de Bruxelles,’ ‘Schaerbeek,’ and ‘Saint Josse ten noode’ Schaerbeek and Saint Josse are the districts where immigrants from Turkey, Morocco, and also Albania are generally found.
The total space that had been destroyed for the project, was an area of 536,900m2, so about 40 blocks of housing and stores in the west of the North Station. Once the destruction of the districts was completed, Schaerbeek could have built 8 towers (with heights varying between 30 and 163m, over an area of 10 hectares), as for Saint Josse, the number of buildings was 18 (and their heights could vary between 18 and 135m, also over an area of 10 hectares) and finally, the Ville de Bruxelles district, which had a larger size compared to the others, 30 hectares to be precise, could have built 54 towers also with heights varying between 18 and 135m.
The sentences have been formulated using ‘could have’, this is not a mistake because the project was never fully realized, even though they’ve destroyed the area that was planned (the citizens had to leave their homes in 1967, so six years before the start of the constructions which was in 1973) The lack of organization was one of the reasons, and the second one was the economic crisis that struck Belgium in the 1970s’. The construction stopped just a few years after its beginning and started again in 1987, but this time with a more modest plan but still, Manhattan was never completed. (Leloutre, 2019)
Of the 70 towers planned, only about fifteen was built. Contrary to the initial plan, the buildings will not be used entirely by private companies. Still, they will essentially host offices of national administrations as well as those of the Flemish regions. (The Flemish administrations are very present in Brussels because although politically Brussels is an independent region, geographically it is located in the Flemish region).
The project was not finished, but the neighborhoods were destroyed, the urban landscape of the city was changed, and thousands of people had to find new houses either in Brussels or in another town Those who stayed in the city had to move to the south of the city. The problem
was that the south was mostly bourgeois neighborhoods, unlike the north, which was mainly composed of workers' families, so financially and socially, these people had to fight against problems that they did not ask for.
Fig 2.4. Comparison before and after the Manhattan project
Source : http ://www.quartiernord.be/fr/documents.html (Last access: 20/01/2021)
3. First urban battles
Fig.3.1. View to the Palace of Justice from a street in the Marolles
Source: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_de_la_Marolle#/media/Fichier:Palais_de_justice_avec_murale_de_Les_Marolles.JPG (Last access: 20/01/2021)
As a result of all these projects, the inhabitants and the associations begin to revolt against the state that decides to make significant urbanistic changes in the city without worrying about the population. The first great victory against the state was the "Battle of the Marolles." The inhabitants of the Marolles had already suffered because of the construction of the Palace of Justice in the 19th century. Already at that time, part of the neighborhood had been destroyed, and in 1969 an expansion project was planned for the palace, which meant that more of the district had to be demolished. This time, however, the state met with the population's anger, but of course, there was no violence during this "fight," and thanks to no violence, even old people and children were able to take part in the protests to defend their neighborhood. Led by the priest of The Marolles, Jacques Van der Biest, the battle started during the summer of 1969 and consisted of sending telegrams to the ministries, organizing press conferences. They also distributed posters with the slogan "NO," not only in the neighborhood but in the whole city. Some gatherings were also organized, but the most famous one was held on September 13th, 1969, when a horse pulled a coffin representing the Promoter, his wife, the Bureaucracy, and their child Expropriation through the streets of the neighborhood before being burnt. The project’s annulation was announced shortly after this ‘funeral,’ and it was a great victory for the citizens who just were the victims of the authorities and, for the first time, managed to stand up to the people who control the city. This event became a beacon of hope for the rest of the population.
The Battle of the Marolles was a great source of inspiration, and a series of associations were created. Notably, the ARAU (Atelier de Recherche et d'Action Urbaines) was founded Of course, this is not the only association that was created in the late 1960s, 1970s. There is also the Inter-Environnement Bruxelles (IEB) and other smaller associations created by the inhabitants of the city to defend urban planning but also the city's heritage. The arrival of these associations also marks the beginning of the voice that the inhabitants or their representatives will have in the town's decisions.
