Temporary Use Shaping the Identity of the NQ: Critical Analysis

Julita Borys Real Estate Architecture KU Leuven 27 May 2020

Critical Analysis

Temporary Use Shaping the Identity of the NQ how the temporary users of the WTC and different actors contributed to the transformation process and helped to shape the new identity of the NQ

A Critical Analysis on Temporary Use in Brussels and NQ

by Julita Borys This booklet provides a deep dive into history and development of temporary use in Brussels, through the WTC, towards the future of North District. The scope provides objective research on the topic and the NQ specifically, with a personal commentary overlay. The interactive version of this full research can also be found at the following link. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZWP Uh80jBY3eNOMD5SJsWCLcvT70uB3c/ view?usp=sharing For a quick overview of the content applicable to the North Quarter, another booklet exists containing the ‘conclusions on temporary use period of the WTC in Brussels. It presents the three main aspects; the management, the users, and the collaborations, that are critical to understanding the topic, followed by the chapter with suggestions for how the process can improve in the future.

Reading Guide

Approach

Chapters

This is an interactive booklet. It presents two versions in one, giving you an option to read the objective research before presenting the author’s commentary. It also allows you to read what is interesting to you at the moment without distractions of other elements. For best experience open the document in Acrobat Reader.

The booklet is divided into chapters that follow a time frame and scale of temporary use.

The base version, one you see while flipping through the booklet, provides the objective informaiton on the topics covered. It is a full research with detailed background information. By reading this version first, it allows you to draw your own conclusions on the topic.

The second version, seen by showing the commentary using the interactive buttons at the bottom corners, will give you a critical analysis. It will provoke you to rethink of the content in a different way and draw links between elements. It gives insight and commentary on how the factual information can be seen in relation to the temporayr use at WTC and its management.

The first chapter can be seen as an introductory chapter to temporary use concept, that frames the research and introduces the reader to a wider range of ideas. Here you can read about the key ideas behind temporary use, the history of Brussels city planning and examples of temproary use happening in Brussels and their management structures.

The second chapter covers a detailed research on what has happened at the WTC I and NQ during the vacant years of the building. It presents the differnet actors and initiatives and what their role was in the development of the North Quarter.

The thrid chapter explores who was involved in the planning of the future of the district, specifically the collaborators of LabNorth. It presents the roles and contributions of the actors and what the future holds for temporary users.

The last chapter presents suggestions for how the process can be improved, covering aspects of collaborations and how temporary use can help diversify the area.

Layout

Each chapter starts with a chapter page which includes the main questions and concepts that will be covered.

Within each chapter you will find summary pages on the topics which introduce the content and question an issue that will be explored.

Information in grey boxes provides supplementary information to further investigate the topic; either a specific aspect or another persepctive on the general concept.

Table of Contents Beginning of Temporary Use in Brussels Temporary Use Concept Explained The Troubles of Planning and Uncertainty in Brussels Who Manages Temporary Use and How?

Implementation of Temporary Use in NQ Management of Temporary Use at WTC Temporary Users and Their Initiatives Outcomes of Temporary Uses

Future of Temporary Use in NQ Actors Involved in Development Future Developments of the NQ ZIN and New Pace for Temporary Users

Guidance for Future Collaborations Participatory Process Public - Private Balance Diversity in the District Suggestions

Sources

Reading Guide

Approach

Chapters

This is an interactive booklet. It presents two versions in one, giving you an option to read the objective research before presenting the author’s commentary. It also allows you to read what is interesting to you at the moment without distractions of other elements. For best experience open the document in Acrobat Reader.

The booklet is divided into chapters that follow a time frame and scale of temporary use.

The base version, one you see while flipping through the booklet, provides the objective informaiton on the topics covered. It is a full research with detailed background information. By reading this version first, it allows you to draw your own conclusions on the topic.

The second version, seen by showing the commentary using the interactive buttons at the bottom corners, will give you a critical analysis. It will provoke you to rethink of the content in a different way and draw links between elements. It gives insight and commentary on how the factual information can be seen in relation to the temporayr use at WTC and its management.

The first chapter can be seen as an introductory chapter to temporary use concept, that frames the research and introduces the reader to a wider range of ideas. Here you can read about the key ideas behind temporary use, the history of Brussels city planning and examples of temproary use happening in Brussels and their management structures.

The second chapter covers a detailed research on what has happened at the WTC I and NQ during the vacant years of the building. It presents the differnet actors and initiatives and what their role was in the development of the North Quarter.

The thrid chapter explores who was involved in the planning of the future of the district, specifically the collaborators of LabNorth. It presents the roles and contributions of the actors and what the future holds for temporary users.

The last chapter presents suggestions for how the process can be improved, covering aspects of collaborations and how temporary use can help diversify the area.

Layout

Each chapter starts with a chapter page which includes the main questions and concepts that will be covered.

Within each chapter you will find summary pages on the topics which introduce the content and question an issue that will be explored.

Information in grey boxes provides supplementary information to further investigate the topic; either a specific aspect or another persepctive on the general concept.

Table of Contents Beginning of Temporary Use in Brussels Temporary Use Concept Explained The Troubles of Planning and Uncertainty in Brussels Who Manages Temporary Use and How?

How and what role do these practices play in development?

Implementation of Temporary Use in NQ Management of Temporary Use at WTC Temporary Users and Their Initiatives Outcomes of Temporary Uses

What can be learnt for the future?

Future of Temporary Use in NQ Actors Involved in Development Future Developments of the NQ ZIN and New Pace for Temporary Users

Is this an inclusive governance structure?

Guidance for Future Collaborations Participatory Process Public - Private Balance Diversity in the District Suggestions

Sources

How can Temporary Users remain at the NQ?

Fig 1

What can we do with empty spaces and buildings, so they are not wastelands just waiting for a miracle?

Who are manages temporary use?

What are their motives?

Fig 2

8

Fig 3

How is temporary use organized?

Is there a clear-cut line between a top down approach or bottom up approach?

Fig 4

Fig 5

Who are the temporary users?

What kind of activities do they do and what purpose do they serve?

Fig 6

Fig 7

Where can it take place and what is the importance of location?

9

What impact does it have on its surrounding?

Fig 8

Beginning of Temporary Use in Brussels Fig 9

What form can temporary use take and why?

Can it serve a greater purpose to the society, area and bigger challenges?

Fig 10

Urban Sprawl and Overpopulation, What about Empty Spaces?

10

Fig 11 Home for Less

There is an enormous amount of empty space that has the potential to be used in one way or another. Undefined green space, abandoned buildings, empty grounds are places where temporary action and installations can take place, not only to meet the local needs but also greater scale challenges.

Can vacant real estate and temporary use become at least a temporary solution?

Temporary Use Concept Explained - the use, whether or not directed or planned, of an urban space, anticipating a “permanent” use of the space in the medium or long term (de Smet, 2013)

Temporary use is also called waiting spaces or paused landscapes. Waiting spaces can be public or private sites, large or small, built or vacant. Their common feature is a total or almost total lack of function (de Smet, 2013).

There are 2 cases for temporary uses; 1. a future function still must be determined therefore, the time frame is essentially unlimited. This is called pure “temporary” use, with more freedom in the possible results (de Smet, 2013).

2. the realisation of the future function is delayed for various possible reasons such as planning processes, financial complications or unexpected technical issues. Therefore, the time frame is limited and this can be called “interim use”. The future of the temporary use is restricted, as plans already exist, however they can still be influenced by the impact of temporary use (de Smet, 2013).

The conditions of the site and the role of the temporary use is related and generally falls into 3 main categories; 1. preventing decay 2. revitalising its surrounding context 3. test of structures and programs Category 1 and 2 are often related to the rent gap and marketing opportunities, while category 3 is seen as more socially acceptable experimentation to test new ideas.

6,500,000 sqm

vacant spaces in Brussels available for temporary uses - Brussels Government Architect, Kristiaan Borret 11

10 of many temporary use projects in Brussels showing different varieties

1.

Building playground on the Thurn & Taxis site (organized during 3 or 4 week in the summers of 2007, 2008 and 2009) 2.

Community gardens (a. Thurn & Taxis, b. Rue Gray (both existing since 2007)) 3.

Limite Limite tower (built in 1999, demolished in 2004) 4.

Bellevue brewery (in temporary use from 2007 to 2011) 5.

Zennestraat 17 (existed from 2009 to 2010) 6.

Actionfields (a PRECARE project by City Mine(d) – used from 2008 to 2010) 7.

Vzw Woningen 123 Logement (in particular: project Koningsstraat – inhabited since 2007) 8.

Cityscape (realized in September 2007, demolished in February 2009) 9.

Lancelot (more specifically: project Kraainem) 10.

PleinOPENair (edition 2010: a, b, c – organized during three weeks, each summer since 1997) Fig 12 Location of the cases in the Brussels Region (de Smet, 2013)

Urban Sprawl and Overpopulation, What about Empty Spaces?

12

Fig 11 Home for Less

a nice initiative showing IT IS possible to transform vacant space into temporary housing, without adapting original structure at high costs

There is an enormous amount of empty space that has the potential to be used in one way or another. Undefined green space, abandoned buildings, empty grounds are places where temporary action and installations can take place, not only to meet the local needs but also greater scale challenges.

Can vacant real estate and temporary use become at least a temporary solution?

Temporary Use Concept Explained - the use, whether or not directed or planned, of an urban space, anticipating a “permanent” use of the space in the medium or long term (de Smet, 2013)

Temporary use is also called waiting spaces or paused landscapes. Waiting spaces can be public or private sites, large or small, built or vacant. Their common feature is a 3rd totalseem or almost 2nd and to betotal the lack caseof function (de Smet, 2013). for the dead NQ therefore it would mean that it is half related to There are 2 the casesrent for temporary gap and uses; half to a social initiative as commonly seen 1. a future function still must be determined therefore, the time frame is essentially unlimited. This is called pure “temporary” use, with more freedom in the possible results (de Smet, 2013).

2. the realisation of the future function is delayed for various possible reasons such as planning processes, financial complications or unexpected technical issues. Therefore, the time frame is limited and this can be called “interim use”. The future of the temporary use is restricted, as plans already exist, however they can still be influenced by the impact of temporary use (de Smet, 2013).

The conditions of the site and the role of the temporary use is related and generally falls into 3 main categories; 1. preventing decay 2. revitalising its surrounding context 3. test of structures and programs Category 1 and 2 are often related to the rent gap and marketing opportunities, while category 3 is seen as more socially acceptable experimentation to test new ideas.

6,500,000 sqm

vacant spaces in Brussels available for temporary uses - Brussels Government Architect, Kristiaan Borret

this is rounded to about 15-30 thousand unused housing units and 2 million sqm of unused office space!

13

10 of many temporary use projects in Brussels showing different varieties

1.

Building playground on the Thurn & Taxis site (organized during 3 or 4 week in the summers of 2007, 2008 and 2009) 2.

Community gardens (a. Thurn & Taxis, b. Rue Gray (both existing since 2007)) 3.

Limite Limite tower (built in 1999, demolished in 2004) 4.

Bellevue brewery (in temporary use from 2007 to 2011) 5.

Zennestraat 17 (existed from 2009 to 2010) 6.

Actionfields (a PRECARE project by City Mine(d) – used from 2008 to 2010) 7.

Vzw Woningen 123 Logement (in particular: project Koningsstraat – inhabited since 2007) 8.

Cityscape (realized in September 2007, demolished in February 2009) 9.

Lancelot (more specifically: project Kraainem) 10.

PleinOPENair (edition 2010: a, b, c – organized during three weeks, each summer since 1997) Fig 12 Location of the cases in the Brussels Region (de Smet, 2013)

lower costs

diversity of use

top down vs. bottom up

creates attention fill in vs. long term

Key Concepts of Temporary Use 14

Diversity of businesses/uses

Fill in vs. long term use

•

•

• •

Offer variety of activity, often social initiatives, creates new economic development and cultural opportunities Economic development as new business and start ups can enter the market opportunity for the creation of an ever-changing network of alternative urban (public) spaces • integration of temporary uses in waiting spaces can create an eperimental character, as a test site. These areas will then also become active ‘nodes of difference and change, and can become breeding grounds for urban innovation’ (de Smet, 2013).

• • • •

Top-down vs bottom-up approach • • •

The difference between typical form of management and the often used bottom up approach by temporary users But this requires change and co-operation with authorities for these temporary social initiatives to succeed Temporary uses also do not fall under the same planning and regulations, therefore can become solutions to traditional methods where they cannot be applied

They can be short term projects that are intended this way, activities that are stand alone or unrelated to the future plan and neighbourhood redevelopment But they can also be temporary users that look for their place within the community and are made to contribute to the neighbourhood So, from experimentation it transforms to implementation Some can have an indefinite time frame for places without future project Links to the concept of attracting people to the location, as for short term users that fill in the waiting period it is not necessary to create a deeper the connection with this specific site

Lower costs • •

•

For the temporary businesses and owner makes revenue in the meantime Though still some running costs and preparatory work are necessary for temporary use and like in the case of WTC, a smaller percentage of space was occupied so the costs of functioning the whole building outweigh the benefits (they have a single heating system for the whole tower) Maybe there is a ratio that can define this proportion

contracts and regulations

place making

security

establishing community

revitalisation

social initiatives

inclusivity

Contracts and regulations • • •

Rented spaces in long term might have different contracts than the temporary use In temporary use, the difference is that they cannot make changes to the building and there are different regulations for use and everything It’s a compromise between higher costs and independence/freedom as well as security

Security • •

•

links to short notices and social protection also security in terms of temporary users reducing the need for surveillance of a vacant building and other costs relating to upkeeping the property Battles illegal uses - Discourages vandalism and illegal occupation of a vacant space

Revitalisation • •

Contribute to revitalisation of the spaces and neighbourhoods Improves appearance of the vacant space, improving residents’ quality of life

Place making • •

Creates an importance to the otherwise empty useless space, given the place a character and can result in more attractiveness of the area But like the issue of the immigration, it can have

•

negative effects if the temporary use does not comply with the vision for the area It can create conflict in the future between temporary use vs intended project, as people grow attached

Establishing community Social initiatives Creates attention • • • •

Attracts people to the site, creating a more dynamic, walkable, and safer street Potentially attracts investors to the site or actors as in the case of WTC from what I read Promotional nature – in some cases private companies support temporary use to use it as promotion grounds Or it promotes the intended permanent use awaiting implementation

Inclusivity • • •

In terms of businesses which normally wouldn’t be able to enter the market and their variety However, there can be some exclusivity depending on the owner, contracts, etc.

Social inclusion through temporary social initiatives

15

lower costs

diversity of use

top down vs. bottom up

creates attention

regardless of the time frame, fill in vs. long the termprojects that take place can have different success rates! Take for examle a one day events or reoccuring ones, they can have a big impact on the community

Key Concepts of Temporary Use 16

Diversity of businesses/uses • • •

Offer variety of activity, often social initiatives, • creates new economic development and cultural opportunities Not necessarily, in some cases Economic development as new business and users that switch often can start ups can enter the market • create that form of character opportunity for the creation of an ever-changing and identity for a place, but network of alternative urban (public) spaces this is a question of a strong • integration of temporary uses in waiting • community that already has spaces can create an eperimental character, something to go on as a test site. These areas will then also • become active ‘nodes of difference and change, and can become breeding grounds • for urban innovation’ (de Smet, 2013).

Top-down vs bottom-up approach • • •

Fill in vs. long term use They can be short term projects that are intended this way, activities that are stand alone or unrelated to the future plan and neighbourhood redevelopment But they can also be temporary users that look for their place within the community and are made to contribute to the neighbourhood So, from experimentation it transforms to implementation Some can have an indefinite time frame for places without future project Links to the concept of attracting people to the location, as for short term users that fill in the waiting period it is not necessary to create a deeper the connection with this specific site

The difference between typical form of Lower costs management and the often used bottom up This is a more complex topic than approach by temporary users • much For the temporary businesses and owner makes just who initiated the project.

But this requires change and co-operation with revenue in the meantime It will define the and relationship authorities for these temporary social initiatives • collaborations Though still some running costs and preparatory between the actors and the success. use and like in to succeed work are necessary for temporary should a mixed approach Temporary uses also do not fall under the same Trully it the case be of WTC, a smaller percentage of space where all parties’ needs are met of andfunctioning the planning and regulations, therefore can become was occupied so the costs they work together. solutions to traditional methods where they whole building outweigh the benefits (they have cannot be applied a single heating system for the whole tower) • Maybe there is a ratio that can define this proportion

contracts and regulations

place making

security

establishing community

revitalisation

social initiatives

inclusivity

Contracts and regulations • • •

Rented spaces in long term might have different contracts than the temporary use In temporary use, the difference is that they cannot make changes to the building and there are different regulations for use and everything It’s a compromise between higher costs and independence/freedom as well as security

Security • •

•

links to short notices and social protection also security in terms of temporary users reducing the need for surveillance of a vacant building and other costs relating to upkeeping the property Battles illegal uses - Discourages vandalism and illegal occupation of a vacant space

Revitalisation • •

Contribute to revitalisation of the spaces and neighbourhoods Improves appearance of the vacant space, improving residents’ quality of life

Place making • •

Creates an importance to the otherwise empty useless space, given the place a character and can result in more attractiveness of the area But like the issue of the immigration, it can have

•

but it can also create a vision for the area if it had non, like the case of NQ

negative effects if the temporary use does not comply with the vision for the area It can create conflict in the future between temporary use vs intended project, as people grow attached FALSE HOPE?

Establishing community Social initiatives

seems like two sides of a coin if the parties can not find a balance

Creates attention • • • •

Attracts people to the site, creating a more dynamic, walkable, and safer street Potentially attracts investors to the site or actors as in the case of WTC from what I read Promotional nature – in some cases private companies support temporary use to use it as promotion grounds Or it promotes the intended permanent use awaiting implementation

Inclusivity • • •

In terms of businesses which normally wouldn’t be able to enter the market and their variety However, there can be some exclusivity depending on the owner, contracts, etc.

Social inclusion through temporary social initiatives

17

Ambitious Plans and Promising Future?

Prepare for Uncertainty

18

Fig 13

Fig 64

The lack of planning and standalone ambitious plans to transform Brussels from a tabula rasa, has caused waves of uncertainty for the future. From re-development plans causing uncertainty for the residents and neighbourhoods, to financial crisis resulting in incomplete projects, to vacant buildings lacking prospective occupants.

Is this the pattern to follow or should planning strategies incorporate and manage uncertainty, as a transition to a better future?

The Troubles of Planning and Uncertainty in Brussels Temporary use can be seen in a way as the opposing force and result of the ambitious projects, processes and failures of the urban planning history of Brussels, alongside the counterprojects. This is discussed to explain the frame for temporary use at the WTC and its history of planning in the area, including the Manhattan plan, Brusselisation and economic crisis leading the financial, spatial, and temporal gaps which impact future developments.

Firstly, it is the case of uncertainty after the effects of WWII, which stimulated the modernist vision of the future, as has been developing in the US, full of grandeur and large scale plans that would create a drastic shift in the area. The 1928 proposal

by V. Bourgeois for the North Quarter, later followed by the 1967 Manhattan Plan of the Groupe Structures resulted in people being forced out of the neighbourhood and streets begun to empty. This was a negative aspect from the perspective of the neighbourhood but seemed to the be a necessary move in the strive for the ambitious new plan for improving this same neighbourhood. It has been accepted by the government for the ‘common good’, despite relocating 11,000 residents (3,000 families) and clearing out 53,000 sqm of land. However, this plan has experienced a major hit of the oil crisis in 1973 leaving the project and the area unfinished (Boie et al., 2019).

This form of action leads to the second uncertainty, the effects of such projects, referred to as Brusselisation. The total clearing of an area or a brand-new proposal, that left the area in pieces with no coherent relation to the neighbourhood or its heritage, in a large effect harming the public sector and economic stability. This led to the new form of uncertainty, in the economic sectors, that meant shorter investment time frames, a ‘new just-intime model for investment, production and supply’ (Boie et al., 2019). In response to Brusselisation, the District Contracts and later Sustainable District Contracts were implemented as 4 to 6 year redevelopments to reconstruct the socio-spatial gaps left in the city (Boie et al., 2019).

Today, new models are used to tackle the past mistakes with more local solutions and urban change. The WTC however has not been considered in the redevelopment plans, as the people-oriented focus disqualified the area due to lacking public interest. As a result, the private owners in the area took it in their hands to lead a redevelopment project through an NPO, Up4North, starting with temporary occupancy projects and community projects in the area before the new ZIN project is in place. Here, the NPO and temporary uses leave a big question mark, as the purpose and benefits of their actions are debatable and the future uncertain. The question of uncertainty is almost

always related to economic aspects, but the biggest question is who is this future uncertain for - the neighbourhood, people, or the private owners? (Boie et al., 2019). Furthermore, urban experimentation can serve as ‘induced amnesia’ bringing an optimistic future and covering up the previous investments, which is criticised in the case of the WTC as the previously promised ‘common good’ is led by private investors (Boie et al., 2019).

As in the case of the WTC, currently the future of vacant sites is in large amounts in the hands of private players, i.e. the market players, rarely collaborating with the government and public authorities which becomes a more visible issue with the growing awareness of the public and community focus. The ideas are the same as in counterprojects of previous phases of uncertainty, but the actions are taken much quicker disregarding governmental input.

Temporary uses can be seen as a new paradigm, an ‘Urban Experimentation’ that act on the city without excessive planning. As they drift between the ‘contested present and an uncertain future’ they give hope and first steps leading to a change in the urban agenda (Boie et al., 2019).

1970s - first generation of urban activists

ex. ARAU (Atelier de recherche et d’action urbaines) Counter action to modernist architecture and Bruselisation, preserving architectural heritage

1990s - second generation

ex. Disturb Vacant urban sites represented both a disgrace and an opportunity Common goal but not a single unified movement Vacant sites enabled various actions, but participants retained their own identity

2000s - current generation

ex. PicNic Consist of social actions, happenings and events rather than counter proposals.

They often focus on community engagement to form stronger neighbourhoods, identity and character, to express what they need.

19

This is a quite ironic methodology.

If there was any real methodology...

How exactly has this been better for the people of the area?

Ambitious Plans and Promising Future?

Was there a big issue in the first place or was it just trying to follow Prepare for Uncertaintythe ideas at the time?

They clearly did not anticipate any possible obstacles. Instead of clearing everything and everyone out, this should have been disscussed and proposed in stages perhaps? Drastic transformations NEVER work!

20

Fig 13

Fig 64

With the lacking strength in the neighbourhood or anyone to drive its progress, it is no surprise that there is uncertainty for what will be there.

Is this another not well thought-out methodology that does not consider future impact and possible The lack of planning and standalone ambitious plans to transform Brussels from risks? a Like lacking demand and vacancy? tabula rasa, has caused waves of uncertainty for the future. From re-development

plans causing uncertainty for the residents and neighbourhoods, to financial crisis resulting in incomplete projects, to vacant buildings lacking prospective occupants.

Is this the pattern to follow or should planning strategies incorporate and manage uncertainty, as a transition to a better future?

The Troubles of Planning and Uncertainty in Brussels Temporary use can be seen in a way as the opposing force and result of the ambitious projects, processes and failures of the urban planning history of Brussels, alongside the counterprojects. This is discussed to explain the frame for temporary use at the WTC and its history of planning in the area, including the Manhattan plan, Brusselisation and economic crisis leading the financial, spatial, and temporal gaps which impact future developments.

Why was it and still Firstly, it is the case of uncertainty the effects is, theafter future and the of WWII, which stimulated‘common the modernist good’vision decided of the future, as has been developing in investors? the US, by private full of grandeur and large scale plans that would create a drastic shift in the area. The 1928 proposal

by V. Bourgeois for the North Quarter, later followed by the 1967 Manhattan Plan of the Groupe Structures resulted in people being forced out of the neighbourhood and streets begun to empty. This was a negative aspect from the perspective of the neighbourhood but seemed to the be a necessary move in the strive for the ambitious new plan for improving this same neighbourhood. It has been accepted by the government for the ‘common good’, despite relocating 11,000 residents (3,000 families) and clearing out 53,000 sqm of land. However, this plan has experienced a major hit of the oil crisis in 1973 leaving the project and the area unfinished (Boie et al., 2019).

This form of action leads to the second uncertainty, the effects of such projects, referred to as Brusselisation. The total clearing of an area or a brand-new proposal, that left the area in pieces with no coherent relation to the neighbourhood or its heritage, in a large effect harming the public sector and economic stability. This led to the new form of uncertainty, in the economic sectors, that meant shorter investment time frames, a ‘new just-intime model for investment, production and supply’ (Boie et al., 2019). In response to Brusselisation, the District Contracts and later Sustainable District Contracts were implemented as 4 to 6 year redevelopments to reconstruct the socio-spatial gaps left in the city (Boie et al., 2019).

Can it then be solved without considering this apsect? just through social initiatives?

always related to economic aspects, but the biggest question is who is this future uncertain for - the neighbourhood, people, or the private owners? (Boie et al., 2019). Furthermore, urban experimentation can serve as ‘induced amnesia’ bringing an optimistic future and covering up the previous investments, which is criticised in the case of the WTC as the previously promised ‘common good’ is led by private investors (Boie et al., 2019).

As in the case of the WTC, currently the future of vacant sites is in large amounts in the hands of private players, i.e. the market players, rarely collaborating with the government and public authorities which becomes a more visible issue with the growing awareness of the public and community focus. The ideas are the same as in counterprojects of previous phases of uncertainty, but the actions are taken much quicker disregarding governmental input.

Temporary uses can be seen as a new paradigm, an ‘Urban Experimentation’ that act on the city without excessive planning. As they drift between the ‘contested present and an uncertain future’ they give hope and first steps leading to a change in the urban agenda (Boie et al., 2019).

21

1970s - first generation of urban activists

Temporary use can be a win-win solution that (Atelier fills the uncertainty gap ex. ARAU de recherche and looks into the real needs of the d’action urbaines) public through exerimentation.

et

Counter action to modernist architecture and Bruselisation, preserving architectural heritage

1990s - second generation

ex. Disturb Vacant urban sites represented both a disgrace and an opportunity Common goal but not a single unified movement Vacant sites enabled various actions, but participants retained their own identity

Today, new models are used to tackle the past mistakes with more local solutions and urban change. The WTC however has not been considered in the redevelopment plans, as the people-oriented more directly focus disqualified the area due to lacking public 2000s - current generation lack of residents! interest. As a result, the private owners in the area took it in their hands to lead a redevelopment ex. PicNic project through an NPO, Up4North, starting with temporary occupancy projects and community Consist of social actions, happenings and events projects in the area before the new ZIN project is rather than counter proposals. in place. Here, the NPO and temporary uses leave They often focus on community engagement a big question mark, as the purpose and benefits to form stronger neighbourhoods, identity and of their actions are debatable and the future character, to express what they need. uncertain. The question of uncertainty is almost

Fig 14

22

In order to make use of the vacant buildings, owners and the government often work with a third-party company that will manage it for them.

Here forms the big question on the intentions of the owners and these companies, as well as their management methods.

Should they be encouraging social initiatives or encourage profit making uses?

Who should manage vacant buildings and temporary uses?

Government or Private Company (CityDev)

Up4North

?

Non-Profit Organisations

Private Organisations

(Toestand) (St-Vide-Leegbeek)

(Entract) (Lancelot)

in return for service to the community

renting as many sqm as possible 23

Management Structure This is a question of management of vacant or abandoned buildings. The structure begins with private owners and government institutions, such as CityDev, that want to lend a purchased property to artists, craftsmen or start-ups before starting renovations.

Often, they use an intermediary organisation for management of the process for commercial vacancy, as the property might need small alternations, temporary permits and general management. There are 2 types of organisations that typically deal with this: non-profit vs private. Non-profit organisations often look for a place for social initiatives, whereas private companies have a different relationship with the occupants and want to make profit, for example occupants only look for space rather than neighbourhood revitalisation.

Where does Up4North place?

The non-profit organisation being run by the major real estate owners of the area, seems to have conflicting interests and cannot be placed clearly in either category.

Fig 14

24

In order to make use of the vacant buildings, owners and the government often work with a third-party company that will manage it for them.

Here forms the big question on the intentions of the owners and these companies, as well as their management methods.

Should they be encouraging social initiatives or encourage profit making uses?

Who should manage vacant buildings and temporary uses?

Government or Private Company (CityDev)

Up4North

?

Non-Profit Organisations

Private Organisations

(Toestand) (St-Vide-Leegbeek)

(Entract) (Lancelot)

in return for service to the community

renting as many sqm as possible 25

Management Structure This is a question of management of vacant or abandoned buildings. The structure begins with private owners and government institutions, such as CityDev, that want to lend a purchased property to artists, craftsmen or start-ups before starting renovations.

Often, they use an intermediary organisation for management of the process for commercial vacancy, as the property might need small alternations, temporary permits and general management. There are 2 types of organisations that typically deal with this: non-profit vs private. Non-profit organisations often look for a place for social initiatives, whereas private companies have a different relationship with the occupants and want to make profit, for example occupants only look for space rather than neighbourhood revitalisation.

Where does Up4North place?

The non-profit organisation being run by the major real estate owners of the area, seems to have conflicting interests and cannot be placed clearly in either category.

As they indirectly organise initiatives through sub coalitions to improve the neighbourhood, they can be seen as having high social responsibility and having good intentions, however they are also the ones who gain on the initiatives indirectly with the success of initiatives and attraction of new investors which impact the future profits of the property owners. Therefore, any action can be seen as private interest.

Where does the balance between private and public interest lie?

Toestand Toestand is a bilingual Brussels non-profit organisation. It was founded in 2010 by a group of young committed Brussels residents, who were looking for a place to party and realised the struggle of many people looking for space to host their activities. So, they created 54Kolaktiv in 2007 at Place Sainte-Cathérine that became a diverse group of artists. Because they were unable to find appropriate locations at community centres, which were often too restrictive, or commercial alternatives, which were not feasible financially, they turned to abandoned buildings. Then they formed Toestand as an organisation to help the same kind of people find such places of opportunity.

It is currently made up of 14 part time employees and over 100 volunteers. They have an extensive network of partners ranging from established organisations to committed local residents.

The organisation is one of the main players in the management of temporary space use in Brussels, with a portfolio of 5 projects and international program as well. They won two prizes and multiple nominations for their operations and diversity of projects and cultural work.

“spaces that represent 'nothing' and therefore can still become anything”

The philosophy is to see empty spaces as a potential to solve challenges on many levels, neighbourhood or city. Vacant sites that are not used and exposed to the threat of vandalism can be transformed into an opportunity. They can turn into places of both experimental and popular activities, to make inclusive and solidarity city, accessible to all.

The main idea of the group is linking shortage of space and organisations looking for affordable places to create a solution. Creating opportunities and bringing people together regardless of their background or financial possibilities, especially for people that have a hard time to it.

These projects form new physical and spiritual ‘connections’ between people who would not otherwise come into contact.

26

6.5 million sqm empty space

Fig 15

+

organisations/ initiatives

=

Strong urban fabric -development -social aspect

1

‘Spontaneous Action Zones’ (SAZ) “Reactivation of forgotten or abandoned buildings, land and spaces (public) through temporary and autonomous socio-cultural centres.”

This is what Toestand refers to as what they do.

They look into transforming empty spaces through temporary socio-cultural activities with the initiative left to the locals. It’s a bottom up approach where it is the people taking lead and Toestand only supports them by providing a framework and space. They say it is ‘turning down participation’ where they participate in the projects that other people come up with and this ‘participation’ is that of supporting and framing and offering space.

The projects organised can be several hours to several years and they organise events such as open days, brocantes, festivals, concerts, lecture series, etc.

2

3

Dialogue, creation, autonomy and action are crucial to their projects. What allows this to be successful is their attitude: an open mentality, giving a lot of freedom to the people out of trust and proximity.

Self-organization is very important, but everyone has the right to do things at their own pace and after a while, they go their own way on their own making space for new initiatives.

4

5

Active search or offer of a property

Preparatory work make it ready for use: clean it, put electricity, make it fireproof and lockable.

Explore possibilities Consider it as a blank canvas: • see what the possibilities are of space • do a thorough analysis of the neighbourhood • think about what the property means or can mean nearby • Think who in the spacious perimeter around the building needs space? What does this neighbourhood need?

Project call launch an open door - a ‘moment’ • organize several activities to demonstrate the potential of the space • look for partners (other socio-cultural initiatives, local residents, young people looking for space) who actively provide the place with a new dynamic • it is an event set up by everyone and for everyone, mainly of citizens and associations that use and help shape the Spontaneous Action Zones

Mix and match Deciding on the mix of users: • threshold of candidacy is very low • no complicated fill-out forms, people just come and say what they want to do • Toestand then looks at what can be done in the building and which combination creates an interesting mix; a diversity in what they do/offer, where they come from, where they go

27

Toestand Toestand is a bilingual Brussels non-profit organisation. It was founded in 2010 by a group of young committed Brussels residents, who were looking for a place to party and realised the struggle of many people looking for space to host their activities. So, they created 54Kolaktiv in 2007 at Place Sainte-Cathérine that became a diverse group of artists. Because they were unable to find appropriate locations at community centres, which were often too restrictive, or commercial alternatives, which were not feasible financially, they turned to abandoned buildings. Then they formed Toestand as an organisation to help the same kind of people find such places of opportunity.

It is currently made up of 14 part time employees and over 100 volunteers. They have an extensive network of partners ranging from established organisations to committed local residents.

The organisation is one of the main players in the management of temporary space use in Brussels, with a portfolio of 5 projects and international program as well. They won two prizes and multiple nominations for their operations and diversity of projects and cultural work.

“spaces that represent 'nothing' and therefore can still become anything”

The philosophy is to see empty spaces as a potential to solve challenges on many levels, neighbourhood or city. Vacant sites that are not used and exposed to the threat of vandalism can be transformed into an opportunity. They can turn into places of both experimental and popular activities, to make inclusive and solidarity city, accessible to all.

The main idea of the group is linking shortage of space and organisations looking for affordable places to create a solution. Creating opportunities and bringing people together regardless of their background or financial possibilities, especially for people that have a hard time to it.

These projects form new physical and spiritual ‘connections’ between people who would not otherwise come into contact.

Toestand intiatives do not stem from a single concern, for the building or the people, rather it looks for connections between them, similarly to trying to collaborate rather than remain single minded.

28

6.5 million sqm empty space

Fig 15

+

organisations/ initiatives

=

Strong urban fabric -development -social aspect

The spaces are sometimes ‘Spontaneous Action Zones’ (SAZ) offered by the government or prvate owners, but thise “Reactivation of forgotten or abandoned does not seem to change buildings, land and spaces (public) through the rest of the approach to temporary and autonomous socio-cultural profit making initiatives. centres.”

2

1

Active search or offer of a property

Preparatory work

make it ready for This is what Toestand refers to as what they do. use: clean it, put They look into transforming empty spaces through electricity, make temporary socio-cultural activities with the it fireproof and initiative left to the locals. It’s a bottom up approach lockable. where it is the people taking lead and Toestand Is the lack of other support called freedom or only supports them by providing a framework and indifference? So Toestand as a ‘management’ space. They say it is ‘turning down participation’ organisation does not have the role of supporting where they participate in the projects that other initiatives to succeed? I suppose that is the role of people come up with and this ‘participation’ is that public authorities and organisations then. of supporting and framing and offering space.

The projects organised can be several hours to several years and they organise events such as open days, brocantes, festivals, concerts, lecture series, etc.

3

Dialogue, creation, autonomy and action are crucial to their projects. What allows this to be successful is their attitude: an open mentality, giving a lot of freedom to the people out of trust and proximity.

Self-organization is very important, but everyone has the right to do things at their own pace and after a while, they go their own way on their own making space for new initiatives.

It is a bit concerning that they view it as a ‘blank canvas’ (when knowing what that meant for NQ), however they he difference is that they work in a place that already does not work and reflect on what it can become for the neighbourhood and what is needed by the people there.

Steps 3 and 4 are steps which make these social organisations different from profit making ones in terms of process.

5

4

Explore possibilities

Consider it as a blank canvas: • see what the possibilities are of space • do a thorough analysis of the neighbourhood • think about what the property means or can mean nearby • Think who in the spacious perimeter around the building needs space? What does this neighbourhood need?

Project call launch an open door - a ‘moment’ • organize several activities to demonstrate the potential of the space • look for partners (other socio-cultural initiatives, local residents, young people looking for space) who actively provide the place with a new dynamic • it is an event set up by everyone and for everyone, mainly of citizens and associations that use and help shape the Spontaneous Action Zones

Mix and match Deciding on the mix of users: • threshold of candidacy is very low • no complicated fill-out forms, people just come and say what they want to do • Toestand then looks at what can be done in the building and which combination creates an interesting mix; a diversity in what they do/offer, where they come from, where they go

29

key points 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

outdoor and indoor space 30 diverse organisations accessible and open to all made in anticipation of new development reduced when the project starts, followed by moving out when finished

Fig 16

In anticipation of the development of the canal zone in North Quarter, Toestand has collaborated with environment.brussels for the temporary use of the outdoor space and vacant buildings on site.

This example is significant as Toestand plays an important role in the temporary use and the future development, as well as because ‘it is the first time in Brussels Region that a public service has started and followed up a project of temporary use.’ The initiative helps with the transition to the new 30 character as well as informing the public of the transformations.

At the 7,000 m2 of indoor space and 2,000 m2 of outdoor space, there was a diversity of activities happening, from social to artistic to even sporting events. There was a place for everyone, with no restrictions to create the opportunity for all people to meet and interact. It is a place where immigrants, locals and hipsters and many more types of people can meet and as a result of this inclusivity, successful creative and social initiatives take place.

These activities, created by the locals, volunteers and regular partners, take place on weekly basis and are accessible to everyone for free, creating a lively neighbourhood.

Fig 18

Fig 17

Allee Du Kaai Canal Zone, NQ 2014 - 2020 Next Step?

The new development is supposed to begin in August 2020 reducing the size of Allee Du Kaai to a part of the site, known as 53 Ais. When the development will be finished in 2022, the initiative, although popular with the public, will have to move out. Instead, the area will become a city park, developed by environment.brussels and Beliris. Allee Du Kaai has addressed the needs of the neighbourhood in the meantime as well as showed the potential and other possibilities. It has prepared the site and the people for the long-term vision and begun enforcing a new social dynamic.

Fig 19

other activities:

Biestebroekbis (2018)

Fig 20

This initiative focuses on single events in the cellars of the Anderlecht Academy as a service to young and less young residents. It was a location for ‘Day of youth houses’, rehearsal room for theatre collectives and marching bands, as a concert space, construction and bar evenings and monthly film screenings. Also, for the older people they offer space, such as whist evenings, brocante, daily chat in the street.

31

In Limbo 2018

Fig 21

This is a digital and physical platform, only for registered partners, to encourage reuse of materials and tackle ecological and economic problems in line with ideas of circular economy.

They recover material from the cultural and construction sectors and pass it on. With this they also help organizations with fewer resources to obtain materials. It has been created by Zinneke vzw, Opera De Munt and Rotor DC and since its start about 100 partners have joined the project and more than 40 tons of materials have been distributed.

International Projects since 2015

Fig 22

The international projects are 2 weeks of construction workshops by the members of Toestand, local organisations and residents to convert an abandoned building. They only begin and create an opportunity for the locals to then take it in their own hands.

key points 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

outdoor and indoor space 30 diverse organisations accessible and open to all made in anticipation of new development reduced when the project starts, followed by moving out when finished

What has the public authority followed up on or learnt from this project?

Are the nees adressed by the new development to the same extent?

Fig 16

In anticipation of the development of the canal zone in North Quarter, Toestand has collaborated with environment.brussels for the temporary use of the outdoor space and vacant buildings on site.

This example is significant as Toestand plays an important role in the temporary use and the future development, as well as because ‘it is the first time in Brussels Region that a public service has started and followed up a project of temporary use.’ The initiative helps with the transition to the new 32 character as well as informing the public of the transformations.

At the 7,000 m2 of indoor space and 2,000 m2 of outdoor space, there was a diversity of activities happening, from social to artistic to even sporting events. There was a place for everyone, with no restrictions to create the opportunity for all people to meet and interact. It is a place where immigrants, locals and hipsters and many more types of people can meet and as a result of this inclusivity, successful creative and social initiatives take place.

These activities, created by the locals, volunteers and regular partners, take place on weekly basis and are accessible to everyone for free, creating a lively neighbourhood.

Fig 18

Fig 17

An initiative that has taken place for 6 years and became very popular with the public will have to move out?

Allee Du Kaai Canal Zone, NQ 2014 - 2020

Next Step?

The new development is supposed to begin in August 2020 reducing the size of Allee Du Kaai to a part of the site, known as 53 Ais. When the development will be finished in 2022, the initiative, although popular with the public, will have to move out. Instead, the area will become a city park, developed by environment.brussels and Beliris. Allee Du Kaai has addressed the needs of the neighbourhood in the meantime as well as showed the potential and other possibilities. It has prepared the site and the people for the long-term vision and begun enforcing a new social dynamic.

It seems to have made a big impact on the community and the social dynamic, I wonder how the new development will follow up this standard. Will the people be accepting and integrated in the new proposal or left hanging?

Fig 19

other activities:

Biestebroekbis (2018)

Fig 20

This initiative focuses on single events in the cellars of the Anderlecht Academy as a service to young and less young residents. It was a location for ‘Day of youth houses’, rehearsal room for theatre collectives and marching bands, as a concert space, construction and bar evenings and monthly film screenings. Also, for the older people they offer space, such as whist evenings, brocante, daily chat in the street.

In Limbo

Can anyone register? This would help a lot of smaller and public organisations to organise their projects.

2018

Fig 21

This is a digital and physical platform, only for registered partners, to encourage reuse of materials and tackle ecological and economic problems in line with ideas of circular economy.

They recover material from the cultural and construction sectors and pass it on. With this they also help organizations with fewer resources to obtain materials. It has been created by Zinneke vzw, Opera De Munt and Rotor DC and since its start about 100 partners have joined the project and more than 40 tons of materials have been distributed.

5 projects, initiated them within 2 weeks. As long as people, local organisations and public authorities are willing to collaborate and participate, we can quickly test new ideas and functions.

International Projects since 2015

Fig 22

The international projects are 2 weeks of construction workshops by the members of Toestand, local organisations and residents to convert an abandoned building. They only begin and create an opportunity for the locals to then take it in their own hands.

33

Communa It was founded in 2013 by 5 students inspired by other initiatives for temporary occupation and housing in empty buildings. They believe their projects in empty buildings will ‘serve as a breeding ground for the emergence of a transition to a mixed, decarbonized and supportive city.’ With temporary uses they can tackle housing issue and organise social projects for the neighbourhood. The aim is to transform real estate vacancy into an opportunity for local development.

How it works The management of the Commons consists of 3 aspects; • ‘Co-management of the site’ on day to day basis done by the users • ‘Opening to the neighbourhood’ meaning meeting the needs of the locals and the area, and last, • ‘Synergy between projects’ meaning that projects complement each other, and users create common initiatives.

34

The governance structure is bottom-up and can be seen on 2 levels; one within the organisation meaning management and guiding the employees and volunteers, and the other management of each project done by the community and users.

The costs are based on a free and conscious monthly contribution to cover the cost of occupation and initial cost for preparatory work. This means the price is suggested according to your financial abilities, so those who can pay more, and the others pay less. It is based on mutual trust and an honest and supportive way that allows the organisation to remain inclusive.

Promote the transitional use of empty buildings - transforming temporarily unoccupied spaces into common spaces through a participatory and supportive approach

mission Hybrid and shared spaces interweave culture and creation, innovative economic activities, associative life and housing. While promoting innovation and socio-cultural mix.

Mixed and affordable spaces Allow citizen projects to be deployed in flexible and accessible workspaces creating interdisciplinary exchanges and synergies.

Access to decent and affordable housing facilitating access to housing for both poorly housed people and for the development of community housing

The use value of transitional arrangements Transforms empty buildings into projects with positive societal impact that can better design future urban developments.

The underestimated impacts of vacancy Through the deployment of transitional uses, the building is maintained and reallocated for cultural and social purposes, until the owner takes over the effective management of the premises

House VDH, Brussels City One of the ongoing projects is the 312sqm of empty space in city centre. It is a couple floors above a bar where the members of the Artist Commons collective have been making a mix of activities. The activities work well with the site conditions of noise until dawn, which was the reason for the vacancy. This place offers an alternative for the artists to have space for work and residence, while giving them their freedom and independence.

This meaning the occupants are involved in the management of the place and the sharing of spaces.

Fig 23

It serves as an example of what can be done with the many empty spaces above Brussels shops.

Lancelot Commercial organisation preserving vacant real estate from vandalism and squatting through temporary inhabitation. Temporary inhabitants, pay low rent, but conform to strict conditions (e.g. no children, no pets, obligatory proof of revenue) and a 2 weeks notice period.

WONINGEN123THYMENTS ASBL ‘The association proposes alternative and concrete solutions to the housing crisis, notably by reallocating empty buildings into housing.

In a community and participatory approach, their commitment is to facilitate individual and collective emancipation.’

BRAL (C) Urban movement ‘From mobility to urban planning, BRAL supports Brussels residents: whether by producing information or highlighting their initiatives. The aim is to defend citizens’ interests with the public authorities. Around the table when possible, on the barricades if necessary.’

St-Vide-Leegbeek The 20th commune is a group of associations focusing on co-building the city with the citizens on many levels, through temporary occupation of empty buildings for; social, economic and cultural experimentation, culturecentres and housing. It is a campaign to stop the advancing market logic of temporary use. They include organisations defending citizens rights with public authorities and uniting many social economy companies defending their voice on the Belgian and European level.

Communa (c) ASBL Toestand | ASBL

Febul (c) Brussels Federation ‘Association that works to effectively realize the right to housing in the Brussels Region. This is by juggling different axes: the creation of housing, the support of other structures, participation in the development of legal provisions and the redistribution of information.’

SAW-B (c) Pluralist Federation ‘SAW-B is committed to social and economic alternatives. By uniting many social economy companies, the movement defends their place at The Belgian and European level: whether by accompanying these initiatives or by stimulating critical thinking about alternatives.’

WONINGEN123THYMENTS ASBL BRAL (C) Urban movement Febul (c) Brussels Federation SAW-B (c) Pluralist Federation

35

It is important to notice that here, the level of management is also seen as an aspect on the daily practices between users. This emphasizes important of collaboration and integration of It was founded in 2013 by 5 students inspired by people in the area.

Promote the transitional use of empty buildings other initiatives for temporary occupation and housing in empty buildings. They believe their projects in empty buildings will ‘serve as a breeding - transforming temporarily unoccupied spaces ground for the emergence of a transition to a mixed, into common spaces through a participatory and decarbonized and supportive city.’ With temporary supportive approach uses they can tackle housing issue and organise social projects for the neighbourhood. The aim is to They are also the ones who are the users of the transform real estate vacancy into an opportunity project. They know best what they need and for local development. want and it is up to them how they run it.

Communa

How it works The management of the Commons consists of 3 aspects; • ‘Co-management of the site’ on day to day basis done by the users • ‘Opening to the neighbourhood’ meaning meeting the needs of the locals and the area, and last, • ‘Synergy between projects’ meaning that projects complement each other, and users create common initiatives.

36

The governance structure is bottom-up and can be seen on 2 levels; one within the organisation meaning management and guiding the employees and volunteers, and the other management of each project done by the community and users.

The costs are based on a free and conscious monthly contribution to cover the cost of occupation and initial cost for preparatory work. This means the price is suggested according to your financial abilities, so those who can pay more, and the others pay less. It is based on mutual trust and an honest and supportive way that allows the organisation to remain inclusive.

mission

Something to learn from in NQ about incorporating different users

Hybrid and shared spaces

interweave culture and creation, innovative economic activities, associative life and housing. While promoting innovation and socio-cultural mix.

Mixed and affordable spaces Allow citizen projects to be deployed in flexible and accessible workspaces creating interdisciplinary exchanges and synergies.

Access to decent and affordable housing facilitating access to housing for both poorly housed people and for the development of community housing

The use value of transitional arrangements Transforms empty buildings into projects with positive societal impact that can better design future urban developments.

The underestimated impacts of vacancy Through the deployment of transitional uses, the building is maintained and reallocated for cultural and social purposes, until the owner takes over the effective management of the premises

The costs are always a big concern, here we see support and collaboration between users that try to maintain the project collectively. Similar but not exactly the same as WTC, but could this be a base for an effective new business model that would allow other users to stay at NQ?

House VDH, Brussels City

One of the ongoing projects is the 312sqm of empty space in city centre. It is a couple floors above a bar where the members of the Artist Commons collective have been making a mix of activities. The activities work well with the site conditions of noise until dawn, which was the reason for the vacancy. This place offers an alternative for the artists to have space for work and residence, while giving them their freedom and independence.

This meaning the occupants are involved in the management of the place and the sharing of spaces.

Fig 23

It serves as an example of what can be done with the many empty spaces above Brussels shops.

Lancelot Commercial organisation preserving vacant real estate from vandalism and squatting through temporary inhabitation. Temporary inhabitants, pay low rent, but conform to strict conditions (e.g. no children, no pets, obligatory proof of revenue) and a 2 weeks notice period.

WONINGEN123THYMENTS ASBL ‘The association proposes alternative and concrete solutions to the housing crisis, notably by reallocating empty buildings into housing.

In a community and participatory approach, their commitment is to facilitate individual and collective emancipation.’

BRAL (C) Urban movement ‘From mobility to urban planning, BRAL supports Brussels residents: whether by producing information or highlighting their initiatives. The aim is to defend citizens’ interests with the public authorities. Around the table when possible, on the barricades if necessary.’

It is interesting to look at how it is a commercial organisation that manages to respond to private and public interest.

Surely this can be done in a more pleasant way, but it shows there can be a compromise if both sides follow ground rules.

This organisation puts focus on the social needs and the process that would support and involve the people rather than give them a quick fix that often does not work. They are also present in the NQ and could be a new collaboration.

St-Vide-Leegbeek The 20th commune is a group of associations focusing on co-building the city with the citizens on many levels, through temporary occupation of empty buildings for; social, economic and cultural experimentation, culturecentres and housing. It is a campaign to stop the advancing market logic of temporary use. They include organisations defending citizens rights with public authorities and uniting many social economy companies defending their voice on the Belgian and European level.

Communa (c) ASBL Toestand | ASBL

Febul (c) Brussels Federation ‘Association that works to effectively realize the right to housing in the Brussels Region. This is by juggling different axes: the creation of housing, the support of other structures, participation in the development of legal provisions and the redistribution of information.’

SAW-B (c) Pluralist Federation ‘SAW-B is committed to social and economic alternatives. By uniting many social economy companies, the movement defends their place at The Belgian and European level: whether by accompanying these initiatives or by stimulating critical thinking about alternatives.’

WONINGEN123THYMENTS ASBL BRAL (C) Urban movement Febul (c) Brussels Federation SAW-B (c) Pluralist Federation

A counteract in a way, highlighting the issue of the public against private relationship and interests.

What they need is the support of private orgainsation to show a good example.

37

+/- 18,000 m2

Usquare.brussels.

student housing (+/- 600 units)

+/- 20,000 m2

‘Bringing people, city and knowledge together’

family housing (+/- 200 units)

7,000 m2

The Usquare project is a conversion of an enclosed military complex, at the Fritz Toussaint barracks, from the early 20th century into an open and diverse living space fit for the 21st century. The site of 3,85ha will become diverse and dynamic, urban and welcoming, university-centred and international, sustainable and innovative.

The master plan was adopted by the Region and designed in partnership with the municipality, Urban Planning Corporation (SAU-MSI), the universities and the EU. The expected time for the project to start is 2023 with the first public spaces, followed by restoration and development of buildings for the university and shared facilities and by 2025 the housing and local facilities should be renovated and built.

The universities, ULB and VUB, wanted to integrate into the city and become part of its development with focus on the people. The city, Brussels-Capital Region, wanted to provide more housing and facilities to improve quality of life for the people.

Together they wanted to ‘reinforce its status as Belgium’s largest student city.’

38

They want this project to open up to the city, promote heritage, and create welcoming and attractive public spaces. As well as developing variety of housing typology, university, library and local facilities open to neighbours.

university facilities

1,400 m2 Sustainable food court

2,500 m2 main esplanade

+/- 300 seats in the large screening room

65 social housing units planned opposite Usquare

SeeU During the transition phase, before the new project, Creatis, D-Side Groupe and Le Troisième Pôle consortium were assigned to manage the site.

SeeU is a temporary use program, initiated in 2019 to take place at the barracks, at the 25,000 m2, bringing life to the place in line with the vision of a participatory lively district. Its main focus is sustainable development, but there are many projects dedicated to innovation and culture as well. There are over 100 projects and users ranging from labs and workshops, to social initiatives and community support, to exhibits and artists, to sustainable projects like food production and small businesses like florists or bike repair. Among many is university Fablab, a café den, a vintage cinema, a stroller café. There are 100 varied Belgian initiatives and the program consists of over 300 actors, referred to as “See’Users”.

Fig 24

VELODROME This temporary installation represents two major events, the Grand Départ of the Tour de France 2019 and the opening of the SeeU site.

The idea is to not only participate in the events during the 100 days of the Tour de France, but also to promote cycling and soft mobility, encourages visitors to cycle to the site. It serves more than just a sport infrastructure, but also as a family friendly place for old and young.

Fig 25

Entrakt Entrakt is a profit making company managing vacant buildings for private owners. They make profit without subsidies or compensation, but by renting as many square metres as possible.

They seem very opposed and negative about the community projects in empty spaces and people overtaking it as if they have the right to do so. This company is prioritising the benefits and situation of the owner over the needs of the temporary users and their activities. They have a different relationship with the users, a more distant and impersonal one, than those of social organisations.

However, they do still provide opportunities for users, such as small start-ups, to test their ideas, but in a limited and controlled way of the owners, a top down approach.

key points 1. Start-ups are offered space to try their ideas 2. Entrakt is taking a big risk and does not make profit 3. Focuses on the business and economic aspects 4. temporary users and the role of Entrakt in supporting the economy

Studo CityGate, Anderlecht Fig 26

This is a concrete block of 22,000 square meters without any facilities. Entrakt as the manager says they are far from making a profit and have taken enormous risks as a small company.

They provide a programme with cultural, social and economic added value, and common equipment, such as the skate park.

Studio CityGate also houses start-ups. Entrakt explains that it is just as much the government’s task to set up the economy and with Studio CityGate they are sort of an incubator, for the real incubator. Creating a potential incubator for startup businesses, new community organizations, and non-profit 39 groups.

Start-ups can try it out their ideas there and if they succeed, they will rent space via Citydev or a private player. If it doesn’t work out, it stops, and they haven’t taken any financial risks and are not tied to a lease.

key points 1. Original function is moved as the building is no longer appropriate 2. Future project and use is already planned 3. Temporary occupancy is interim use with defined time frame 4. Temporary users will have to have similar functions to match the proposal, most likely to create a correlation and to avoid changes to the building

Actiris building, Brussels Actiris, the Brussels employment agency, plans to sell the buildings on the Anspachlaan to move to a new location. The current building is no longer suitable for a variety of reasons: it is difficult to receive employers and the unemployed in a comfortable way, the location itself is not ideal, there are safety problems, the work environment no longer adapted and there is little daylight in the building, which is also characterized by low ceilings.

VDD Project Development - Vervoordt r.e. with Coussée & Goris Architecten and Omgeving won the selection as the new buyer and design team(7a) proposing the new project called The DOME. It consists of an Eataly marketplace on the ground floor, contemporary programme of housing and economic activities, co-working space run by Fosbury & Sons and a publicly accessible dome offering a unique view of the city.

In the meantime of getting required documents for the transformation, there will be a temporary occupancy for a large part of the block. VDD Project Development and Vervoordt r.e. have signed an agreement with Entrakt, which will place the emphasis on a temporary occupancy that is both compatible with the building and adapted to the site’s future development.

Fig 27

Usquare.brussels.

+/- 18,000 m2 student housing (+/- 600 units)

+/- 20,000 m2

‘Bringing people, city and knowledge together’ The Usquare project is a conversion of an enclosed military complex, at the Fritz Toussaint barracks, from the early 20th century into an open and diverse living space fit for the 21st century. The site of 3,85ha will become diverse and dynamic, urban and welcoming, university-centred and international, sustainable and innovative.

The master plan was adopted by the Region and designed in partnership with the municipality, Urban Planning Corporation (SAU-MSI), the universities and the EU. The expected time for the project to start is 2023 with the first public spaces, followed by restoration and development of buildings for the university and shared facilities and by 2025 the housing and local facilities should be renovated and built.

The universities, ULB and VUB, wanted to integrate into the city and become part of its development with focus on the people. The city, Brussels-Capital Region, wanted to provide more housing and facilities to improve quality of life for the people.

Together they wanted to ‘reinforce its status as Belgium’s largest student city.’

40

family housing (+/- 200 units)

7,000 m2 Very ambitious university facilities vision for 1,400 m2 a complete transformation Sustainable food court thats seems to be 2,500 m2 a selling pitch. main esplanade

+/- 300 seats in the large screening room

These 65 stakeholders seem to social housing units planned opposite Usquare contribute equally.

Learning from history, could this be done in steps rather tahn leaving SeeU housing for last again?

During the transition phase, before the new project, Creatis, D-Side Groupe and Le Troisième Pôle consortium were assigned to manage the site.

SeeU is a temporary use program, initiated in 2019 to take place at the barracks, at the 25,000 m2, bringing life to the place in line with the vision of a participatory lively district. Its main focus is sustainable development, but there are many projects dedicated to innovation and culture as They want this project to open up to the city, promote well. There are over 100 projects and users ranging heritage, and create welcoming and attractive public from labs and workshops, to social initiatives and spaces. As well as developing variety of housing community support, to exhibits and artists, to typology, university, library and local facilities open sustainable projects like food production and small to neighbours. businesses like florists or bike repair. Among many Will it really be is university Fablab, a café den, a vintage cinema, a integrating a new user and accessible for stroller café. There are 100 varied Belgian initiatives providing housing are good everyone, as the and the program consists of over 300 actors, intentions to have a lively buildings are referred to as “See’Users”. Huge diversity and range, neighbourhood and atmosphere facing inwards? but do these initiatives have any chance of staying in the Fig 24 area? They are not part of the design or vision as it has VELODROME been decided already, This temporary installation represents two major events, the Grand Départ of the Tour de France 2019 and the opening of the SeeU site.

The idea is to not only participate in the events during the 100 days of the Tour de France, but also to promote cycling and soft mobility, encourages visitors to cycle to the site. It serves more than just a sport infrastructure, but also as a family friendly place for old and young.

Fig 25

Entrakt Entrakt is a profit making company managing vacant buildings for private owners. They make profit without subsidies or compensation, but by renting as many square metres as possible.

They seem very opposed and negative about the community projects in empty spaces and people overtaking it as if they have the right to do so. This company is prioritising the benefits and situation of the owner over the needs of the temporary users and their activities. They have a different relationship with the users, a more distant and impersonal one, than those of social organisations.

However, they do still provide opportunities for users, such as small start-ups, to test their ideas, but in a limited and controlled way of the owners, a top down approach.

To an extent they are correct to not encourage and allow spontanous and uncontrolled actions, but the solution is not to stop it but to help make them it benefit everybody and do it fairly.

key points 1. Start-ups are offered space to try their ideas 2. Entrakt is taking a big risk and does not make profit 3. Focuses on the business and economic aspects 4. temporary users and the role of Entrakt in supporting the economy

Studo CityGate, Anderlecht Fig 26

This is a concrete block of 22,000 square meters without any facilities. Entrakt as the manager says they are far from making a profit and have taken enormous risks as a small company.

They provide a programme with cultural, social and economic added value, and common equipment, such as the skate park.

Studio CityGate also houses start-ups. Entrakt explains that it is just as much the government’s task to set up the economy and with Studio CityGate they are sort of an incubator, for the real incubator. Creating a potential incubator for startup businesses, new community organizations, and non-profit 41 groups.

Start-ups can try it out their ideas there and if they succeed, they will rent space via Citydev or a private player. If it doesn’t work out, it stops, and they haven’t taken any financial risks and are not tied to a lease.

key points 1. Original function is moved as the building is no longer appropriate 2. Future project and use is already planned 3. Temporary occupancy is interim use with defined time frame 4. Temporary users will have to have similar functions to match the proposal, most likely to create a correlation and to avoid changes to the building

Actiris building, Brussels Actiris, the Brussels employment agency, plans to sell the buildings on the Anspachlaan to move to a new location. The current building is no longer suitable for a variety of reasons: it is difficult to receive employers and the unemployed in a comfortable way, the location itself is not ideal, there are safety problems, the work environment no longer adapted and there is little daylight in the building, which is also characterized by low ceilings.

VDD Project Development - Vervoordt r.e. with Coussée & Goris Architecten and Omgeving won the selection as the new buyer and design team(7a) proposing the new project called The DOME. It consists of an Eataly marketplace on the ground floor, contemporary programme of housing and economic activities, co-working space run by Fosbury & Sons and a publicly accessible dome offering a unique view of the city.

In the meantime of getting required documents for the transformation, there will be a temporary occupancy for a large part of the block. VDD Project Development and Vervoordt r.e. have signed an agreement with Entrakt, which will place the emphasis on a temporary occupancy that is both compatible with the building and adapted to the site’s future development.

Fig 27

Are private owners limiting opportunities? key points 1. The needed extension and financial crisis resulted in poor design 2. Undefined area and lacking character 3. 30,000 sqm are vacant, Tri Postal cultural centre uses less than 1/20 of the space 4. Limitations of a private owner 5. No temporary use/social initiatives 6. Actions taken only after media attention

42 Fig 28

Under the Tracks South Station SNCB

The South station has seen decades of inaction of spaces with large market, apart from a former postal sorting centre until 1998. 30,000 sqm have been vacant since then until recently when Tri Postal cultural centre came in last year taking less than 1/20 of the space.

There is 22,000 sqm between the South Station and the Kleine Ring that is a strategic and key space that can connect the city and the station and improve the neighbourhood. The municipality would like to use them for catering, shops and a market hall.

However, SNCB and Infrabel are preventing the spaces from being reused ‘because of fire risk’, an argument that Infrabel has already used at the Recyclart arts centre.

Only after a confronting media article, SNCB announced the plans for development and begun looking for private and public partners for a global and coherent vision.

Now the railway company sees potential in the spaces for functions such as a food hall, a bicycle shed, shops or catering establishments.

There is a great level of exclusivity and unfair treatment in some cases of management. Some sites have no future as private owners reject and prevent their use. Commercialisation of temporary use, the reasons for their existence in certain places and consequences are much more complex than it seems.

Is top-down management preventing implementation and success of temporary use?

Places are made by the people, otherwise they are just empty spaces key points 1. A social/community initiative 2. Aim to revive the neighbourhood and give back to the community 3. Shows the importance of the location and type of temporary user 4. The place and character reflect and embodies the type of project it is

43 Fig 29

Recyclart Kapellekerk station/ Bruxelles-Chapelle Infrabel

Recyclart started in 1997 when they occupied the out-of-use train station. Without the location and the neighbourhood, they wouldn’t and couldn’t be what they are. The station embodies the idea behind the project – alternative, slightly rough and grungy, a bit out of the way, but with a vision of connecting people and ideas, regeneration of public space and revival of the local community. They bring life into this part of town with socio-cultural activities organized by the locals in collaboration with artists, to engage the community to bring them closer to the arts and to one another.

Recyclart not only shows art, but also supports young artists in a variety of fields by giving space (24 hours a day, 7 days a week for a maximum of

six months) and assistance to create and show their works. With no formal procedure to apply, no age limit and no specific restrictions in genre, it is inclusive, yet very competitive.

Further they are mixing culture and social economy through the employment project, which provides professional training for low-skilled job seekers. About 15 people are trained for up to two years through work experience in catering, metal and woodwork (Fabrik), management and maintenance of infrastructure.

However, they have been relocated as the owners said there is a security risk.

The initiative kept living at another location, as it was a very well-founded idea.

Some temporary users find their way into existence through social initiatives. They bring life to the city and community integration. Some are ways for people to try out business ideas without commitment. But all are creating an opportunity to improve their society and situation, a bottom up approach where people are the main driver to change.

Does experimentation and social initiatives work in every context? What is the meaning of location?

Are private owners limiting opportunities? key points 1. The needed extension and financial crisis resulted in poor design 2. Undefined area and lacking character 3. 30,000 sqm are vacant, Tri Postal cultural centre uses less than 1/20 of the space 4. Limitations of a private owner 5. No temporary use/social initiatives 6. Actions taken only after media attention

44 Fig 28

Under the Tracks South Station SNCB

Like some other private companies, also Jaspers-Eyers, they tend to do as they please and stay out of any attention. Only with media pressure and being pushed to a wall, there are beginning to collaborate and make a vision that plays in favour of others’ interests as well.

The South station has seen decades of inaction of spaces with large market, apart from a former postal sorting centre until 1998. 30,000 sqm have been vacant since then until recently when Tri Postal cultural centre came in last year taking less than 1/20 of the space.

There is 22,000 sqm between the South Station and the Kleine Ring that is a strategic and key space that can connect the city and the station and improve the neighbourhood. The municipality would like to use them for catering, shops and a market hall.

However, SNCB and Infrabel are preventing the spaces from being reused ‘because of fire risk’, an argument that Infrabel has already used at the Recyclart arts centre.

Only after a confronting media article, SNCB announced the plans for development and begun looking for private and public partners for a global and coherent vision.

Now the railway company sees potential in the spaces for functions such as a food hall, a bicycle shed, shops or catering establishments.

There is a great level of exclusivity and unfair treatment in some cases of management. Some sites have no future as private owners reject and prevent their use. Commercialisation of temporary use, the reasons for their existence in certain places and consequences are much more complex than it seems.

Is top-down management preventing implementation and success of temporary use?

Places are made by the people, otherwise they are just empty spaces key points 1. A social/community initiative 2. Aim to revive the neighbourhood and give back to the community 3. Shows the importance of the location and type of temporary user 4. The place and character reflect and embodies the type of project it is

Perhaphs location is not as significant as who it brings together?

For the NQ, temporary users then do not have to remain at initial locations but find the right users and retain their power to stay active in the area.

Fig 29

Recyclart Kapellekerk station/ Bruxelles-Chapelle Infrabel

Recyclart started in 1997 when they occupied the out-of-use train station. Without the location and the neighbourhood, they wouldn’t and couldn’t be what they are. The station embodies the idea behind the project – alternative, slightly rough and grungy, a bit out of the way, but with a vision of connecting people and ideas, regeneration of public space and revival of the local community. They bring life into this part of town with socio-cultural activities organized by the locals in collaboration with artists, to engage the community to bring them closer to the arts and to one another.

Recyclart not only shows art, but also supports young artists in a variety of fields by giving space (24 hours a day, 7 days a week for a maximum of

six months) and assistance to create and show their works. With no formal procedure to apply, no age limit and no specific restrictions in genre, it is inclusive, yet very competitive.

Further they are mixing culture and social economy through the employment project, which provides professional training for low-skilled job seekers. About 15 people are trained for up to two years through work experience in catering, metal and woodwork (Fabrik), management and maintenance of infrastructure.

However, they have been relocated as the owners said there is a security risk.

The initiative kept living at another location, as it was a very well-founded idea.

Some temporary users find their way into existence through social initiatives. They bring life to the city and community integration. Some are ways for people to try out business ideas without commitment. But all are creating an opportunity to improve their society and situation, a bottom up approach where people are the main driver to change.

Does experimentation and social initiatives work in every context? What is the meaning of location?

45

Fig 30

Debate: Toestand vs Entrakt

46

These are the main ideas taken from the article “De strijd om leegstaand Brussel: privé en vzw gaan in debat”, an interview with Pepijn Kennis from Toestand and Dries Vanneste from Entrakt.

The debate in the article wants to clarify the two different approaches and possible conflict between them. The idea that commercial vacancy managers, such as Entrakt focus on start-ups, and non-profit organisations such as Toestand focus on the social, will result in a fair distribution and processes, seems too easy of a solution. The question is not about which organisations deal with which tenants, but about how they do it that causes friction. The main concern of Kennis is that the commercialisation on temporary use creates a division between the private and public bodies, whereas they should be working together to set an example and make these buildings for everyone and as accessible as possible.

Especially when the governments look to create places for social opportunities but somehow do not use their vacant properties for it.

The Top-Down approach of Entrakt The methods of Entrakt place the power with the organisation over the running of the building and the users. Entrakt says that their role is to ensure that everything runs smoothly and that they don’t cause any problems for the owners, neighbours, politicians and so on. This implies that they need to limit and control the users, as they are the one actor not mentioned in the answer and are not treated as priority.

The contract of Entrakt has many points which allows them to control users and limit their freedom, making it unfavourable.

•

Occupiers are not allowed to give interviews without the knowledge of Entrakt. Some occupants do not dare to give an interview out of fear that after all the investments they made themselves, they would simply be evicted.

Entrakt says that there are sometimes delicate projects that the media could question so they want to make sure it does not reach their attention.

•

Occupiers may not object to the building application for the final project. Toestand argues that it is not up to a private company to deprive people of that democratic right.

•

There is also an indexation of 3.5 percent but Entrakt say it’s not implemented yet.

•

Occupiers have to pay 100 euros per hour that you have to wait for the handover of the key.

•

Occupiers deposit the deposit in an Entrakt account, and not in a blocked account. This allows Entrakt to keep the desired amount of the deposit during discussions. Entrakt explains that this is done to avoid extra administration, extra costs and ultimately a higher occupancy fee. This is often referred to as the Uberisation of housing (coming from Uber that also uses this argument).

Everything is very strict and leads to many complaints such as the lack of privacy, unexpected invoices or sudden price increase. To this, Entrakt defends itself that prices don’t just go up and there will always be dissatisfied people, but that’s because their own project is not in the right building. This clearly turns the fault to the user rather than the management of the organisation. It’s a very defensive statement and the complains are about management, however it can also make us think about how the location matters and fits with the uses and culture.

Neither organisations have the protection of a lease and neither of them offer social protection, however with Toestand occupiers don’t have to submit an extract from the criminal record, a statement of income or family insurance like they do for Entrakt.

These are things that are not even allowed to be asked for in the tenancy law. This is the grey zone of the tenancy law, precarious occupation of people who are indeed called precarious occupiers. Even though the contracts seem crazy and Entrakt admits it, they also say that in practice they are right.

All of this implies that really the management has the power over the users, a typical top down model, and they control the users to avoid any conflict and problems for the owner.

What shows through in the article is how the nonprofit organisation shames the private company for how they treat the users and their aims for organising temporary uses. One can see that Entrakt has a very firm approach and stance and how they defend everything not to make them look bad, in both the article and in their methods, staying away from media attention.

The future of temporary use During the debate there is a question about how temporary use will evolve and what will it look like in about five years.

Entrakt says there will be further professionalisation, because the management is certainly not yet perfect.

But that they are pushing each other forward in temporary use. They are convinced that without them, temporary use would have evolved less.

Whereas Toestand disagrees and hopes that it will turn to ‘transition use,’ where the temporary user will think along with the organisations about the final destination. They also hope that that the governments will take the lead in this and there will be more collaboration.

A reference is given to the temporary occupation of the old barracks in Ixelles, See U, where the government took a more active role.

This structure meant that the government makes the investments, so the manager doesn’t have to take those risks. The occupiers pay the government and the manager receives a fixed fee, so there is no longer a balance of power. An interesting model, but at See U, the price was decided in the end and the management went to the cheapest provider.

47

How and what role do these practices play in development?

Non-Profit Organisations

Private Organisations

time frame

typically undefined time frame with hope to become permanent or day events

defined time frame, typically short term before the new development

project initiation

spontanous, when a vacant property is available, initiated by the NPO or locals

planned often in advanced by the owners of vacant property, as part of development schemes

community integration cheap space for new initiatives diversity

prevent illegal squatting prevent vandalism and offer security provide income for owner

management

bottom up, freedom given to the users

top down, supervising and controlling the users

proccess

open call organised after analysis of the neighbourhood, selection of users that complement each other and create variety

open call is organised to find tenants that fit the future vision of the development and do not require changes to the building

payment

free contribution or service to the neighbourhood

rent paid per sqm

collaborations

supported by the authorities and organisations that want to collaborate on projects of their interests locals are involved in cocreation many volunteers take part

typically work only with the private owners not much involvemnt from outside organisations or authorities

impact on the neighbourhood

create diveristy and new uses in the neighbourhood socially integerate people more cultural and social activities support the neighbourhood in its challenges

usually impact is not very visible can boost the economy and bring new people or stakeholders to the area

impact on future development

sometimes can become involved in the process for a new proposal or give ideas for new uses at the site

usually no greater impact in terms of changing the planned project, but can create attraction to the site and proposal

typically relocates to another site or ends if it is a temmporary initiative

relocates to another building, if successful to a permanenet location

intention

48

future of temporary use

Up4North/LabNorth

2 years, before the start of the new development initiated by owners as an NPO planned in advance before the new development test functions for the neighbourhood find balance between profit/and other functions research the needs of the area top down with freedom for users to initiate their own projects open call with some users predecided by the organisation based on functions wanted 5 criteria selection process both forms of contracts can begin as free occupation with returned favour to neighbourhood later turning into rent

collaborated with design companies and think-and-do-tank stimulated authorities to take action in the area, but not directly work with temporary occupation

new temporary activities and events attracted new investors/users changing percepetion of the area

confirmed and explored the type of fnctions needed in the neighbourhood influenced the design of the tower, but not its funcitons relocated to adjacent building and work further with the organisation trying to find their place in the neighbourhood

49

How and what role do these practices play in development?

Non-Profit Organisations

Private Organisations

time frame

typically undefined time frame with hope to become permanent or day events

defined time frame, typically short term before the new development

project initiation

spontanous, when a vacant property is available, initiated by the NPO or locals

planned often in advanced by the owners of vacant property, as part of development schemes

community integration cheap space for new initiatives diversity

prevent illegal squatting prevent vandalism and offer security provide income for owner

management

bottom up, freedom given to the users

top down, supervising and controlling the users

proccess

open call organised after analysis of the neighbourhood, selection of users that complement each other and create variety

open call is organised to find tenants that fit the future vision of the development and do not require changes to the building

payment

free contribution or service to the neighbourhood

rent paid per sqm

collaborations

supported by the authorities and organisations that want to collaborate on projects of their interests locals are involved in cocreation many volunteers take part

typically work only with the private owners not much involvemnt from outside organisations or authorities

impact on the neighbourhood

create diveristy and new uses in the neighbourhood socially integerate people more cultural and social activities support the neighbourhood in its challenges

usually impact is not very visible can boost the economy and bring new people or stakeholders to the area

impact on future development

sometimes can become involved in the process for a new proposal or give ideas for new uses at the site

usually no greater impact in terms of changing the planned project, but can create attraction to the site and proposal

typically relocates to another site or ends if it is a temmporary initiative

relocates to another building, if successful to a permanenet location

intention

50

future of temporary use

Up4North/LabNorth

2 years, before the start of the new development initiated by owners as an NPO planned in advance before the new development

By comparing Up4North to the 2 different approaches, we can begin to see which category the organisation falls into and how their actions compare. To no surprise a lot falls under the same label as private organisation, but some approaches are similar to non-profit organisations.

However it ended before the start of new construction as it was not financially viable to run the tower.

Perhaps if the whole tower was used, it would have paid off.

test functions for the neighbourhood find balance between profit/and other functions research the needs of the area top down with freedom for users to initiate their own projects open call with some users predecided by the organisation based on functions wanted 5 criteria selection process both forms of contracts can begin as free occupation with returned favour to neighbourhood later turning into rent

collaborated with design companies and think-and-do-tank stimulated authorities to take action in the area, but not directly work with temporary occupation

new temporary activities and events attracted new investors/users changing percepetion of the area

confirmed and explored the type of fnctions needed in the neighbourhood influenced the design of the tower, but not its funcitons relocated to adjacent building and work further with the organisation trying to find their place in the neighbourhood

We will never know what criteria it was, some mentions of common goal and approach, but that is only 2 out of 5...

Testing other functions and initiatives for them to stay should be implemented once the neighbourhood has some life, currently it was only to attract life to the area as none of the function were really intended to stay for longer.

51

I wonder how they judged who needs which contract. Could be that it was based on ability to afford rent or returned service to neighbourhood, but it is not consistent with what happened.

Collaboration plays a more important role and more actors are involved in the proccess, but the actions themselves are not very directly linked and it is still limited to the chosen few, ie. they are simply used. The company remains on their own path to the future rather than working with others for trully common one.

If they have contributed a lot to the process and ideas of what could be done, why haven’t they found a place at the new development?

It seems like they have in a way been part of the design process, but in reality they did not influence it.

How has the building and the district been activated after years of unuse and monotony?

Was there more transparency and interaction with the public and public space?

Fig 31

Has more life been brought to the district?

What has taken place in the meantime, in preparation for the NQ development?

How has the WTC transformed with temporary occupancy?

52

Is it a transformation centre not only in its physical form but also for the neighbourhood and urban practice?

Fig 32

Fig 33

Fig 34

Fig 35

Implementation of Temporary Use in NQ Fig 36

Can architecture teaching take a different form? Form of experimentation, collaboration and implementation in the real world by placing itself in the centre of the issue?

What impact did this form of studies make on the people and the surrounding?

Fig 37

53

Fig 38

How have the users of the WTC contributed to the development of the neighbourhood?

Will they stay longer?

What impact have they made on the people and place?

Fig 39

Fig 40

What’s the use of an empty tower?

54

Fig 41

After the original use has ended its purpose, the lifespan of the towers was reaching the end, leaving them empty.

Platform North is a temporary occupancy project, were artists, students and organisations could occupy some of the floors at the towers. Some were given the space in return for giving back to the neighbourhood, some were paying rent in order to be able to contribute. After a while, it was not financially viable to have the temporary users.

What is the true reason they were occupying the towers?

The Users at WTC Platform North is a temporary occupancy project that took place at the towers when the original use and intention didn’t meet the market demand anymore. Additionally, Up4North did not want to leave the tower empty until the renovations.

Therefore, artists and organisations could use the space in the towers in return for a contribution to improving the neighbourhood, such as a vegetable garden or a beach bar.

The occupants are preparing projects which will have a positive impact for the North District, and will benefit different current and future users; inhabitants, employees of big and small companies and institutions around, students in the neighbourhood schools, etc. The project is meant to attract both large and small actors that can contribute to the district in this new dynamic community and potentially become new tenants, sharing spaces and creating a mix of functions in the area. Therefore, these temporary users have the potential to become permanent ones in the planned project.

Fig 42

floor 27 workshop of Samenlivingsopbouw + space for rent for events floor 26 Platform North occupants floor 25 independent collectif floor 24 KULeuven university floor 23 “You Are Here” exhibition, part of IABR floor 18 Platform North occupants floor 17 initiatives, organisations and companies + spaces for rent for talks, conferences, lectures, workshops, etc.

Fig 43

floor 16 partners of the Lab North coalition + spaces for rent

The WTC offices were released for a year from January 2018 offering space to about 50 occupants, 30 of which are in the WTC 1. These are small and medium-sized institutions, young start-ups or associations that can add value to the Noordwijk.

Lab North office is located on the 16th floor, while temporary users occupied the floors above, 17 to 26, which had 15% vacancy rate. The occupants included fashion designers, a local radio station, Society Building Brussels, Nansen, a non-profit organisation that provides legal advice to refugees, Service Volontaire International (SVI), artists and more.

However, the public access to the towers remains limited, even with these temporary users that create social initiatives. People could only enter with an admission or rendezvous. Only with some of the later uses, such as the public garden and the IABR temporary exhibition on the 23rd floor, the public gained access to the building.

Furthermore, there has been criticism that the private owners do not care so much for the ‘common good’ or the temporary users, which can be seen in the fact that they have 2 different contract types.

The ‘service contract’ is for users that generate knowledge and a vision for the neighbourhood, while the ‘use contract’ is for users that want to engage with the neighbourhood and have to pay 35euro/sqm to be able to do so, KUL being one of them despite their contribution to imagining the future of the district (Boie, G. et al., 2019).

All the way down is the technical service of the facility company Engie-Cofely, which oversees the heating and safety of the tower of 102 meters with 28 floors.

The tower has only one central heating, which is the reason why it was economically not viable to keep the temporary uses only on the limited floors due to running costs.

55

What’s the use of an empty tower?

56

Fig 41

After the original use has ended its purpose, the lifespan of the towers was reaching the end, leaving them empty.

Platform North is a temporary occupancy project, were artists, students and organisations could occupy some of the floors at the towers. Some were given the space in return for giving back to the neighbourhood, some were paying rent in order to be able to contribute. After a while, it was not financially viable to have the temporary users.

What is the true reason they were occupying the towers?

The Users at WTC Platform North is a temporary occupancy project that took place at the towers when the original use and intention didn’t meet the market demand anymore. Additionally, Up4North did not want to leave the tower empty until the renovations.

Therefore, artists and organisations could use the space in the towers in return for a contribution to improving the neighbourhood, such as a vegetable garden or a beach bar.

The occupants are preparing projects which will have a positive impact for the North District, and will benefit different current and future Fig 42 users; inhabitants, employees of big and small companies and institutions around, students in the neighbourhood schools, etc. The project is meant to attract both large and small actors that The WTC offices were released for a year from can contribute to the district in this new dynamic January 2018 offering space to about 50 occupants, community and potentially become new tenants, 30 of which are in the WTC 1. These are small and sharing spaces and creating a mix of functions in medium-sized institutions, young start-ups or the area. Therefore, these temporary users have the associations that can add value to the Noordwijk. potential to become permanent ones in the planned Lab North office is located on the 16th floor, while Temporary use has not been very project. temporary users occupied the floors above, 17 to transparent and open to the public, 26, which had 15% vacancy rate. The occupants with events and projects being included fashion designers, a local radio station, occasional ones, so how effective were Society Building Brussels, Nansen, a non-profit they in creating a lively district and organisation that provides legal advice to refugees, attracting new tenants?

Service Volontaire International (SVI), artists and floor 27 more.

What about all these floors? Could there not be other uses or perhaps temporary housing, since they wanted to test a mix and future inteded use?

workshop of Samenlivingsopbouw + space for rent for events floor 26 Platform North occupants floor 25 independent collectif floor 24 KULeuven university floor 23 “You Are Here” exhibition, part of Empty?

IABR floor 18 Platform North occupants

The website of LabNorth is constantly under construction therefore limited information is avaiable to fully understand the contributions of the Fig 43 users and who they were.

floor 17 initiatives, organisations and companies + spaces Empty? for rent for talks, conferences, lectures, workshops, etc. floor 16 partners of the Lab North coalition + spaces for rent

However, the public access to the towers remains limited, even with these temporary users that create social initiatives. People could only enter with an admission or rendezvous. Only with some of the later uses, such as the public garden and the IABR temporary exhibition on the 23rd floor, the public gained access to the building.

Furthermore, there has been criticism that the private owners do not care so much for the ‘common good’ or the temporary users, which can be seen in the fact that they have 2 different contract types.

The ‘service contract’ is for users that generate knowledge and a vision for the neighbourhood, while the ‘use contract’ is for users that want to engage with the neighbourhood and have to pay 35euro/sqm to be able to do so, KUL being one of them despite their contribution to imagining the future of the district (Boie, G. et al., 2019).

All the way down is the technical service of the facility company Engie-Cofely, which oversees the heating and safety of the tower of 102 meters with 28 floors.

The collaborators of LabNorth were The tower has only one central heating, which is the all on the same floor, away from the reason why it was economically not viable to keep initial occupants it seems. But they the temporary uses only on the limited floors due to refer in multiple sources that they running costs. wanted to be part of the project.

They were in the building but to what extent did they collaborate with others?

57

“North District, next step?”

This was a 2 day workshop organized by perspective. brussels, LabNorth and the BMA in June 2018.

With 4 foreign experts they discussed the future of the North Quarter.

3 themes covered • • •

functional mix, including the “mono-occupant” / “multi-occupier” occupancy model the activation of public space and the role of active ground floors inclusive governance models and public-private partnerships

Presentation of 3 urban projects The experts will provide a fresh look at the key issues in the North Quarter. This will be an opportunity to address issues of governance, functional mix, activation of public spaces and transition to a multioccupancy building model. The focus will be placed on the current state and actions for the short-term that can be undertaken today.

4 foreign experts invited 1. Ellen Nieuweboer, Master of Work Development Office Neighbourhoods in Amsterdam (Project ‘Sloterdijk and Amstel III’); 2. Tabea Michaelis et Ben Pohl, Partners at Denkstatt Basel à Zurich (projet ‘Urbane Werkstadt’); 3. Charlotte Girerd, Director of Projects and Development, SNCF Real Estate communication / change management in Paris (Groundcontrol project).

Fig 44

“Do You North?”

58

Fig 32

This is an initiative from the collaboration of Up4North, LabNorth and design agency Vraiment Vraiment. It is a part of a long-term strategy to rethink the North district as a future-proof, mixeduse district.

The aim of this initiative is to inform the people about the ongoing activities and dynamics in the area. To show that the district is slowly transforming from its corporate, monofunctional image.

This is done through many small projects around the district, such as; Food harvest

at least 5 kilos per week

Friendly meeting point for the neighbourhood Green spot

for nice breaks in the district

Atypical spot

for events and parties

Prototype place for urban agriculture research Sustainable area

to preserve nature

- “North Plek”- urban furniture and info boards on Bolivar square in front of the railway station to welcome people in the area as well as the WTC terrace. The furniture was intended to travel around the district to be tested in public areas to inform the design of the future district - highlighting remarkable or forgotten public spaces like the Parc de la Senne - an ideal place to escape from the hectics in the business district - urban garden on the terrace of the WTC towers - for local associations to grow plants and vegetables and a place to meet and relax during their lunch-break

IABR–2018+2020–THE MISSING LINK and You Are Here This was an exhibition, urban debate programme and shared workspace as part of The International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam (IABR) taking place in Rotterdam and Brussels. IABR– 2018+2020–THE MISSING LINK is a social experiment and a double biennale in 2018 and 2020 solely focusing on the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations and the Paris Climate Agreement. The 2018 biennale brought together the work and ideas of many actors and experts working on the Missing Link in their own locations. In the 2020 biennale, the results of their work that has been implemented, was presented.

In preparation for the Biennale, Architecture Workroom Brussels, Team Vlaams Bouwmeester and Up4North worked together to transform the WTC and its vacant shopping centre into an open workspace, providing space and time to administrations, companies, citizens, community initiatives and others to take part in exhibitions, public debates and working sessions.

floor 23

Fig 45

6 themes of transitions

The WTC became not only a workspace, but a test site on a greater scale. The work at WTC could determine the future of the Noordwijk, the city, the Delta of the Low Countries and by extension, the world. The WTC became a World Transformation Center. A place were ambitious goals were transformed into actual changes.

Space for Biodiversity and Water Caring Living Environments (Re)Productive city Healthy Agriculture Renewable Energy Landscape A New Mobility System

The questions of the biennale include: how do we change the way we live, work and move from place to place so that we can genuinely realize the climate targets? How do we make room in our cities for a different type of mobility, renewable energy or increased solidarity? And how do we progress from good intentions to actual transformations?

Fig 46

3 exhibitions The exhibition was organised through 3 floors of the building to reflect its goals, ideas and program.

1st floor - The Future is Not Realistic A sound installation located in the double-height lobby of a former bank.

2nd floor - The Future is a Practice Exhibits twenty projects showing that today, we already have the necessary tools to make next steps towards achieving future goals. The exhibition presents the insights and power of spatial practices that make the future conceivable through actual transformation of our surrounding.

23rd floor - The Future is Here This floor was dedicated to a workspace for fifteen specific social change projects from Brussels, Flanders and the Delta of the Low Countries.

It offered space for over 400 actors to begin work to transform these projects to a reality. The projects were visualised and became the first steps towards transformations in practice.

59

These presentations that are available online from the foreign experts unfortunately do not cover their opinion on the NQ and their suggestions.

“North District, next step?”

This was a 2 day workshop organized by perspective. brussels, LabNorth and the BMA in June 2018.

With 4 foreign experts they discussed the future of the North Quarter.

3 themes covered • • •

functional mix, including the “mono-occupant” / “multi-occupier” occupancy model the activation of public space and the role of active ground floors inclusive governance models and public-private partnerships

Presentation of 3 urban projects The experts will provide a fresh look at the key issues in the North Quarter. This will be an opportunity to address issues of governance, functional mix, activation of public spaces and transition to a multioccupancy building model. The focus will be placed on the current state and actions for the short-term that can be undertaken today.

4 foreign experts invited 1. Ellen Nieuweboer, Master of Work Development Office Neighbourhoods in Amsterdam (Project ‘Sloterdijk and Amstel III’); 2. Tabea Michaelis et Ben Pohl, Partners at Denkstatt Basel à Zurich (projet ‘Urbane Werkstadt’); 3. Charlotte Girerd, Director of Projects and Development, SNCF Real Estate communication / change management in Paris (Groundcontrol project).

Fig 44

“Do You North?”

60

Fig 32

I would expect more of LabNorth initiatives and perhaps something more interactive. The boards and furniture is an idea but it does not really invite to do much else and are not very informative actually.

This is an initiative from the collaboration of Up4North, LabNorth and design agency Vraiment Vraiment. It is a part of a long-term strategy to rethink the North district as a future-proof, mixeduse district.

The aim of this initiative is to inform the people about the ongoing activities and dynamics in the area. To show that the district is slowly transforming from its corporate, monofunctional image.

This is done through many small projects around the district, such as; Food harvest

at least 5 kilos per week

Friendly meeting point for the neighbourhood Green spot

for nice breaks in the district

Atypical spot

for events and parties

Prototype place for urban agriculture research Sustainable area

to preserve nature

- “North Plek”- urban furniture and info boards on Bolivar square in front of the railway station to welcome people in the area as well as the WTC terrace. The furniture was intended to travel around the district to be tested in public areas to inform the design of the future district - highlighting remarkable or forgotten public spaces like the Parc de la Senne - an ideal place to escape from the hectics in the business district - urban garden on the terrace of the WTC towers - for local associations to grow plants and vegetables and a place to meet and relax during their lunch-break

IABR–2018+2020–THE MISSING LINK and You Are Here This was an exhibition, urban debate programme and shared workspace as part of The International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam (IABR) taking place in Rotterdam and Brussels. IABR– 2018+2020–THE MISSING LINK is a social experiment and a double biennale in 2018 and 2020 solely focusing on the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations and the Paris Climate Agreement. The 2018 biennale brought together the work and ideas of many actors and experts working on the Missing Link in their own locations. In the 2020 biennale, the results of their work that has been implemented, was presented.

In preparation for the Biennale, Architecture Workroom Brussels, Team Vlaams Bouwmeester and Up4North worked together to transform the WTC and its vacant shopping centre into an open workspace, providing space and time to administrations, companies, citizens, community initiatives and others to take part in exhibitions, public debates and working sessions.

floor 23

Fig 45

6 themes of transitions

The WTC became not only a workspace, but a test site on a greater scale. The work at WTC could determine the future of the Noordwijk, the city, the Delta of the Low Countries and by extension, the world. The WTC became a World Transformation Center. A place were ambitious goals were transformed into actual changes.

Space for Biodiversity and Water Caring Living Environments (Re)Productive city Healthy Agriculture Renewable Energy Landscape A New Mobility System

The questions of the biennale include: how do we change the way we live, work and move from place to place so that we can genuinely realize the climate targets? How do we make room in our cities for a different type of mobility, renewable energy or increased solidarity? And how do we progress from good intentions to actual transformations?

Fig 46

3 exhibitions The exhibition was organised through 3 floors of the building to reflect its goals, ideas and program.

1st floor - The Future is Not Realistic A sound installation located in the double-height lobby of a former bank.

2nd floor - The Future is a Practice Exhibits twenty projects showing that today, we already have the necessary tools to make next steps towards achieving future goals. The exhibition presents the insights and power of spatial practices that make the future conceivable through actual transformation of our surrounding.

23rd floor - The Future is Here This floor was dedicated to a workspace for fifteen specific social change projects from Brussels, Flanders and the Delta of the Low Countries.

It offered space for over 400 actors to begin work to transform these projects to a reality. The projects were visualised and became the first steps towards transformations in practice.

61

Marcel Bike Cafe

CafeNorth is an initiative organised by LabNorth to activate the ground floor of the WTC tower with the intention to attract life and the public to the site. It was a place for the public and the users of the WTC to have lunch or a coffee during business hours and afterwards. It was a place to host events and workshops with the public, as well as with the actors in the area, such meetings with the municipality and regional department. With the many events and cultural activities, the idea was to encourage the public to come and be part of the transformation, for example through sharing their views and ideas on the neighbourhood needs through offering free coffee.

Marcel Bike Café is an experimental organisation that intended to merge love for food and cycling. It was a cafe for local products and bike repair place that opened in May 2018 in Café North. It was a place to eat, meet people, share experiences while sharing the passion for bikes. The focus is also placed on DYI and recycling, seen in the character and service of the place. The bike repair is a service to anyone, where they can work on their own bikes and find all the tools needed and help if needed. It also offers a program where you can learn to transform and reuse old parts into useful objects or hear incredible stories of others.

ground floor

Cafe North

62

Fig 49

Fig 47

neighbourhood This was a group that has organised an event with a pool in the neighbourhood, probably as a result of a lacking facility. They managed to close the streets from traffic for a day and close the reservoir to make a public open pool. It was a successful event where many people came to use and enjoy the project.

Pool is cool

Fig 48

Alive Architecture This is a research-based practice focusing on the process and reflective practice to activate sites in Brussels. With TakTyk they have curated the 2014 Parckdesign project – Parckfarm for the design biennale at TOUR & TAXIS, which focus on interplays between the designer and the local to co-produce, activate and care about the Parckfarm. The approach was to integrate local actors through the process. Their project ‘FarmTruck’, made with Rirbaucout, “represents the mobile part of the Parckfarm. It is a van that can be turned into a kitchen, a workshop, a cinema and a stage, amongst other things.” They wanted to bring this truck to the NQ to share it with other players in the neighbourhood. The main goal was the inclusion of multiple actors - including residents and refugees.

‘“The actual trend is consumption picture.”

Christian wants to “enable people to create their own composition, to slow down and observe.

Enable people to create their own work. Share knowledge and idea around photograph, motivate youngers to create.”’ He was looking for a diversity of people and opportunity to add and communicate around his project.

Stephanie Fortunato

Christian Fabris

floor 17

An individual, an artist, working with image as an interface of the study of space, city scape and architecture. The works take a documentary approach, seen through varying audio-visual forms, from documentary movies, videos, sound documentaries and installations. There are 3 projects found at the WTC; 1. Cartographie Feminine (women and city) 2. Memorial Landscapes (history and architecture) 3. L’archipel interieur (art and mental space)

Fig 51

63

Fig 50

Le Detour This temporary use is organised by Neva Low, Naime Perette and Camille Picquot to provide space for research and presentation in areas of arts and social sciences. Monthly there will be an evening event for artists and researchers to share their work.

Irma Farma Irma Farma was 1 of the 10 projects on the pedestal of the WTC, taking place from June to December 2018. This was not part of PlatformNorth however it was a project that used the WTC and contributed to its transformation and temporary use. The project was a goat meadow, vegetable garden and a treehouse on the pedestal of the WTC towers 1 and 2 to build on yourself. This was intended to attract people to a previously unused area and add to the bare look of the towers, while stimulating public participation in the project.

Fig 52

Antenne Pulse Air Radio ‘Less hits more music’ is the slogan of the radio station. Pulse Air labels itself as ‘a pure player radio, a station with a bold, well-argued and inspiring tone’. The content is Belgian but varied, thanks to the artists participating in the production.

It is a place, a laboratory, where young people have the freedom to experiment and find new ways of using the radio.

GRUE Grue is an organisation working in Paris and Brussels, dedicated to research on the water issue and how it can become integrated into the public realm. They want to collaborate with LabNorth, Befimmo and Brussels Environment to use the WTC terrace and other places in the neighbourhood as testing grounds for devices that collect water and then place it into public space, before its directed to underground collectors. The intention is to test this as a solution to tackle a great issue, one of summer heat peaks through cooling island mechanisms.

It created a place with more life at the WTC and encouraged participation however it was quite surface level, rather then actual exchange of information with other actors and debates.

CafeNorth is an initiative organised by LabNorth to activate the ground floor of the WTC tower with the intention to attract life and the public to the site. It was a place for the public and the users of the WTC to have lunch or a coffee during business hours and afterwards. It was a place to host events and workshops with the public, as well as with the actors in the area, such meetings with the municipality and regional department. With the many events and cultural activities, the idea was to encourage the public to come and be part of the transformation, for example through sharing their views and ideas on the neighbourhood needs through offering free coffee.

Marcel Bike Cafe Marcel Bike Café is an experimental organisation that intended to merge love for food and cycling. It was a cafe for local products and bike repair place that opened in May 2018 in Café North. It was a place to eat, meet people, share experiences while sharing the passion for bikes. The focus is also placed on DYI and recycling, seen in the character and service of the place. The bike repair is a service to anyone, where they can work on their own bikes and find all the tools needed and help if needed. It also offers a program where you can learn to transform and reuse old parts into useful objects or hear incredible stories of others.

ground floor

Cafe North

64

Fig 49

Fig 47

It does not really matter for the transformation of the whole district that the users are at the WTC if they make their projects outside, open to the public. They need a relationship with people however that is achieved. preferably actively and through the whole proces.

neighbourhood This was a group that has organised an event with a pool in the neighbourhood, probably as a result of a lacking facility. They managed to close the streets from traffic for a day and close the reservoir to make a public open pool. It was a successful event where many people came to use and enjoy the project.

Pool is cool

Fig 48

Alive Architecture

In other sources, it became clear that some of the initiatives seemed but were not very approriate, such as the truck, where the food was too expensive. What is the intention and who was it for really?

This is a research-based practice focusing on the process and reflective practice to activate sites in Brussels. With TakTyk they have curated the 2014 Parckdesign project – Parckfarm for the design biennale at TOUR & TAXIS, which focus on interplays between the designer and the local to co-produce, activate and care about the Parckfarm. The approach was to integrate local actors through the process. Their project ‘FarmTruck’, made with Rirbaucout, “represents the mobile part of the Parckfarm. It is a van that can be turned into a kitchen, a workshop, a cinema and a stage, amongst other things.” They wanted to bring this truck to the NQ to share it with other players in the neighbourhood. The main goal was the inclusion of multiple actors - including residents and refugees.

Stephanie Fortunato ‘“The actual trend is consumption picture.”

Christian wants to “enable people to create their An individual, an artist, working with own composition, to slow down and observe. image as an interface of the study of Enable people to create their own work. Share space, city scape and architecture. The knowledge and idea around photograph, works take a documentary approach, motivate youngers to create.”’ He was looking seen through varying audio-visual for a diversity of people and opportunity to add forms, from documentary movies, and communicate around his project.

The initiatives tagged in red do not videos, sound documentaries and seem to directly relate to the NQ, installations. There are 3 projects found its users and future transformation. at the WTC; Christian Fabris Perhaps they are potential tenants 1. Cartographie Feminine (women in the area creating diversity? and city) 2. Memorial Landscapes (history and architecture) 3. L’archipel interieur (art and mental space)

floor 17

Fig 51

65

Fig 50

Le Detour This temporary use is organised by Neva Low, Naime Perette and Camille Picquot to provide space for research and presentation in areas of arts and social sciences. Monthly there will be an evening event for artists and researchers to share their work.

Irma Farma Irma Farma was 1 of the 10 projects on the pedestal of the WTC, taking place from June to December 2018. This was not part of PlatformNorth however it was a project that used the WTC and contributed to its transformation and temporary use. The project was a goat meadow, vegetable garden and a treehouse on the pedestal of the WTC towers 1 and 2 to build on yourself. This was intended to attract people to a previously unused area and add to the bare look of the towers, while stimulating public participation in the project.

Fig 52

Antenne Pulse Air Radio ‘Less hits more music’ is the slogan of the radio station. Pulse Air labels itself as ‘a pure player radio, a station with a bold, well-argued and inspiring tone’. The content is Belgian but varied, thanks to the artists participating in the production.

It is a place, a laboratory, where young people have the freedom to experiment and find new ways of using the radio.

At ZIN, the talk is about adaptive reuse as the sustainable concept, but what about water challenges in the area? This could have been a good new collaboration for future projects.

GRUE

Grue is an organisation working in Paris and Brussels, dedicated to research on the water issue and how it can become integrated into the public realm. They want to collaborate with LabNorth, Befimmo and Brussels Environment to use the WTC terrace and other places in the neighbourhood as testing grounds for devices that collect water and then place it into public space, before its directed to underground collectors. The intention is to test this as a solution to tackle a great issue, one of summer heat peaks through cooling island mechanisms.

Illegal Brewery

This group works with a company named Magic Street, who use interactive and multimedia technology as a tool for communication, creation of meaningful experiences for the public and enhancing public spaces that are usually overlooked by planning bodies. Grizzly Films intended to make a video projection at the WTC to attract people to the tower. This will be a 3D mapping video presented, in September, as a one -time showing at the event in collaboration with Illegal Brewery, another user of the WTC.

Illegal Brewery is a non-profit organisation from Brussels, with one key aim; bring artists and brewers together in one project. The goal, to make best beers that would then finance, produce, support and distribute artistic projects.

As users of the WTC, they installed a bar on the podium roof terrace to create an attraction and friendly atmosphere that would attract life to the roof garden.

Grizzly Films

floor 17 Fig 55

Fig 53

roof terrace Fig 56

66

Fig 54

Ladiv Production Ladiv Production has been directly working alongside LabNorth, covering their events and what is happening in the projects, acting as reporters of the process. Furthermore, they built a publicly accessible, so it seems, sound room on the 17th floor. Another project they wanted to make was a ‘music picnic’ event at former bar of the ground floor of WTC. This would be a weekly event, on Fridays, where there would be live acoustic music to enjoy during lunch breaks.

ground floor

Corinne Dubien Corinne, the organiser, is organising a public listening of radio pieces from around the world, including different types ranging from documentaries, field recordings to fiction, explored through connecting themes. The event took place at night, from September, at the common area of floor 17 and was open for free, to the workers and the inhabitants of the North District.

Nansen is a non-profit organisation that provides legal advice to refugees. The organisation would like to set up info sessions to inform about the situation of the refugees and asylum seekers in Belgium. Through Nansen’s daily activities and being centrally located in the heart of the problem (surrounded by Aliens Office, General Commissioner for Refugees and Statelessness, and Parc Maximilien), they have gained inside knowledge and understanding of the situation, which they want to share and clarify misconceptions about this group of users of the North District.

The group was looking for a collective space for the sessions and for collaborations with other projects related to asylum within the LabNorth community.

Dreamocracy is a ‘collective intelligence for the common good.’ As their contribution, using wikiblock blueprints and a philosophical approach, they want to identify projects of interest in the neighbourhood and propose different solutions by creating them from scratch. In a way this becomes a counterproject per se after the fact, a way to show what can be done to improve it. Their team carried out the project in November 2018.

Dreamocracy

Nansen Fig 57

Fig 59

floor 17

67

Samenlivingsopbouw

Fig 58

Service Volontaire International (SVI) This Belgian-French-Vietnamese association is an International Volunteering Service set up in 2009 in Brussels. It is a non-profit, pluralist, non-political organisation without religious affiliations, that acts as a coordinator for volunteers to encourage exchange between northern and southern countries. The organisation is made for and by volunteers, to prepare, send and welcome new volunteers to international workcamps and long-term projects made by local non-profit organisations. Each year, they enable around 950 young French speaking volunteers to go abroad and take part in more than 2000 projects in more than 70 countries. The organisation hosted information sessions each Wednesday on the 17th floor.

This organisation has been working on the Woonbox Project, a modular building system that converts buildings into living units. A quick and efficient, and cheap, method to convert empty floor space, like at the WTC to a living space for those in need and as a solution to the greater challenge of lacking housing in Brussels. The organisation was doing hands-on prototyping and was looking for furniture, plants and any ideas for the project from the others.

floor 27

Illegal Brewery Illegal Brewery is a non-profit organisation from Brussels, with one key aim; bring artists and brewers together It is a project in one project. The goal, to make best that has a multibeers that would then finance, produce, purpose and at support and distribute artistic projects. the same time As users of the WTC, they installed a bar emphases what on the podium roof terrace to create an is already a attraction and friendly atmosphere that known culture in would attract life to the roof garden.

Belgium.

This group works with a company named Magic Street, who use interactive and multimedia technology as a tool for communication, creation of meaningful experiences for the public and enhancing public spaces that are usually overlooked by planning bodies. Grizzly Films intended to make a video projection at the WTC to attract people to the tower. This will be a 3D mapping video presented, in September, as a one -time showing at the event in collaboration with Illegal Brewery, another user of the WTC.

Grizzly Films

floor 17 Fig 55

Fig 53

roof terrace Fig 56

68

Fig 54

Ladiv Production Ladiv Production has been directly working alongside LabNorth, covering their events and what is happening in the projects, acting as reporters of the process. Furthermore, they built a publicly accessible, so it seems, sound room on the 17th floor. Another project they It is the centre of wanted to make was a ‘music picnic’ event at information and link former bar of the ground floor of WTC. This between LabNorth would be a weekly event, on Fridays, where and the public. A there would be live acoustic music to enjoy ‘transformation during lunch breaks. centre’ radio. It should continue to communicate the information and encourage people to get involved.

ground floor

Corinne Dubien Corinne, the organiser, is organising a public listening of radio pieces from around the world, including different types ranging from documentaries, field recordings to fiction, explored through connecting themes. The event took place at night, from September, at the common area of floor 17 and was open for free, to the workers and the inhabitants of the North District.

Nansen is a non-profit organisation that provides legal advice to refugees. The organisation would like to set up info sessions to inform about the situation of the refugees and asylum seekers in Belgium. Through Nansen’s daily activities and being centrally located in the heart of the problem (surrounded by Aliens Office, General Commissioner for Refugees and Statelessness, and Parc Maximilien), they have gained inside knowledge and understanding of the situation, which they want to share and clarify misconceptions about this group of users of the North District.

The group was looking for a collective space for the sessions and for collaborations with other projects related to asylum within the LabNorth community.

Nansen Fig 57

With a direct take on contributing to the NQ, they are helping the exsisting situation and the refugees, currently the main users of NQ. If they would better collaborate with LabNorth and public authorities perhaps the issue could find some more solutions.

Dreamocracy is a ‘collective intelligence for the common good.’ As their contribution, using wikiblock blueprints and a philosophical approach, they want to identify projects of interest in the neighbourhood and propose different solutions by creating them from scratch. In a way this becomes a counterproject per se after the fact, a way to show what can be done to improve it. Their team carried out the project in November 2018.

It would be interesting for LabNorth to trully collaborate with them to identify places and begin a participative process for their development with the public.

Dreamocracy

Fig 59

floor 17

69

Samenlivingsopbouw

Fig 58

Service Volontaire International (SVI) This Belgian-French-Vietnamese association is an International Volunteering Service set up in 2009 in Brussels. It is a non-profit, pluralist, non-political organisation without religious affiliations, that acts as a coordinator for volunteers to encourage exchange between northern and southern countries. The organisation is made for and by volunteers, to prepare, send and welcome new volunteers to international workcamps and long-term projects made by local non-profit organisations. Each year, they enable around 950 young French speaking volunteers to go abroad and take part in more than 2000 projects in more than 70 countries. The organisation hosted information sessions each Wednesday on the 17th floor.

This organisation has been working on the Woonbox Project, a modular building system that converts buildings into living units. A quick and efficient, and cheap, method to convert empty floor space, like at the WTC to a living space for those in need and as a solution to the greater challenge of lacking housing in Brussels. The organisation was doing hands-on prototyping and was looking for furniture, plants and any ideas for the project from the others.

floor 27

Organised by Dr. Petra Pferdmenges, Nele Stragier, Christopher Paesbrugghe in collaboration with Lab North, the studio is a form of academic practice, where students work with professors who in their practice collaborate with locals and other actors. It was initiated to involve students in a design lab that researches visions for Brussels region on 3 different scales and designs with sociospatial context and a transition process between them. The scales start with the scale S for urban 1:1 interventions in todays context, followed by near future on scale L that would be the architectural and urban proposal, leading to the scale XL that is a vision for the whole neighbourhood development until 2040. In this edition of the studio, the students formed a collective lab, Living North, in which they observed, interacted and inhabited the WTC and the district, to develop a vison for its spatial transformation. Students went to the streets to talk to the people of the district and enter collaborations. They organised a café in an empty building to invite people to talk about the future of the neighbourhood.

With support of LabNorth they were able to test their views with the local users, residents and urban policy makers of Brussels region for their S scale intervention. On the L scale students individually designed a public space that would connect the North Quarter to the surrounding areas and fit with their overall vision for the district. On XL scale the students envisioned to ‘create a city’ which investigated a top down thinking and bottom up moving that in the future allows the people to create the identity of the place.

BRU Studio S.L.XL. / KU Leuven Fig 60

70

New Location, New Teaching Temporary use, experimentation and teaching share many elements and aspects that constitute of learning outcomes for the future of architecture education and practice. With the WTC being used as temporary educational space, it has transformed the form of teaching into another level, a 1:1 scale activation of the site for academics and temporary users. It has become a process of activating, experimenting and implementing, both in terms of the school at the WTC but also for the student work happening at the centre of their research questions. This becomes a new model of academic practice, where we generate impact through teaching creating a link between academic and practical.

By locating students at the centre of the challenge, they were able to open a public debate, interaction with various people and actors. Students were able to go beyond idealistic visions to practical solutions and real-life challenges, while exploring the role of the architect themselves. Similarly, to the IABR 20182020 theme and focus on linking theory and practice by implementation. The WTC as a test site, was also referred to as an island – a place for both dreaming and failing in a safe environment for students and a source for inspiration and an escape for professionals. In a way

a theoretical safe space up above the real challenges, where the users can experiment and then bring their ideas down to earth where they become solutions. It became a place for new forms of critical engagement, confrontation and collaboration of the users and actors of NQ. Placing people with different interests in the same space can cause tensions or new relationships leading to creative solutions, also forcing reflection on the current practice and role of architects and architecture. This was however limited on daily bases as the only common space was the roof terrace or the elevator for spontaneous interactions or living the same world. A test site in terms of architecture also meant the building changes according to needs of new users and experimentation for redesign that can be tested on 1:1, setting an example for building and material reuse. Lastly, temporary occupancy, like architecture education at the WTC, is a form of experimentation, to learn lessons of what the identity is/should be and as a form of analysis and trial of what these can become in the future. Showing the way teaching is changing and needs different environment, same way working style and office buildings are changing, and most of all the North District.

Student experience

Towards Inclusive Gentrification studio / KU Leuven Policy Whispering Studio / KU Leuven

floor 24 LUCA School of Arts

Fig 61 This studio was organised by Alive Architecture in collaboration with Lab North & Perspective.

Brussels.

Manhappen / KU Leuven

It was a part of the project Solidary Affordable Housing for the homeless.

Through developing, testing and refining a model for co-creation and building of a solidary mobile home, the studio addressed many challenges; affordable housing for the homeless, uniting them into a community, social interaction and networks in the neighbourhood and the issue of vacant space in Brussels.

During the studio, the students collaborated with the locals, the homeless and refugees as well as interacted with other actors and occupiers at the WTC, such as Samenlivingsopbouw. The public was invited to a one-day workshop at the WTC, to find solutions that can meet all the needs.

Solidary Mobile Housing Design Studio / KU Leuven

From the many interviews with students about the WTC24 experience there are both positive and negative emotions emerging among students mixed as the time passed by. The first feelings of excitement and improvement from the old building, an appreciation of the open space, possibilities and different open hours that students could use the building where a step up to meet their needs. However soon it also became a pain as in the short time the school had organised this, really becoming a test, the staff has not been able to arrange and organise studios in the physical space.

Therefore, it was left to the students as a learning opportunity, or just passing off responsibility. On one hand, it was an additional concern, but also became a form of connecting and identifying with the workplace and finding their own arrangements that worked, stimulating and intensifying conversation and work rather than comfort, so the school thought. However, some students felt that will all this burden of having to manage the space and everything themselves, their work suffered more. They did appreciate and gained much more from being at the site; getting closer to the people and actors involved, seeing their actions have an impact, understanding the context better and connecting with it to a level that it really mattered.

This experience became the inspiration for Pilot BXL, a group of students and ex-students, who after proposed to redesign the ‘Meurop’ building in open conversation with the staff. Further it initiated the formation of OC Brussels (Education Committee) on the institution level. This shows what impact a temporary use can have and how experimentation can lead to change while also showed how conversation and collaboration can improve when searching for a common goal.

Adaptive Reuse Program Masterclass / Uni. Hasselt This masterclass was led by Freek Persyn and Dieter Leyssen from the University of Hasselt as part of the Adaptive Reuse program before the temporary occupancy and before the new development proposal.

It contained different lessons of different topics. In one it focused on the conditions of the WTC and rose many questions of the interaction between the building and outdoor space. Another focus has also been on the classic axes of the district. The axis that has been the key element in history and development of the area, one that now is also a question for urban public space design and mobility. The main question of the lesson was how to make the Bolivar axis the main axis of the district rather than the Albert II axis. Another lesson was focused on the programs and defined functions of post modernistic district with reflection on adaptable and multifunctional uses. At this studio, many actors were invited, including the Bouwmeester, architects, activists, and owners of the building to debate and reflect on 5 main goals/objectives for the district.

71

Organised by Dr. Petra Pferdmenges, Nele Stragier, Christopher Paesbrugghe in collaboration with Lab North, the studio is a form of academic practice, where students work with professors who in their practice collaborate with locals and other actors. It was initiated to involve students in a design lab that researches visions for Brussels region on 3 different scales and designs with sociospatial context and a transition process between them. The scales start with the scale S for urban 1:1 interventions in todays context, followed by near future on scale L that would be the architectural and urban proposal, leading to the scale XL that is a vision for the whole neighbourhood development until 2040. In this edition of the studio, the students formed a collective lab, Living North, in which they observed, interacted and inhabited the WTC and the district, to develop a vison for its spatial transformation. Students went to the streets to talk to the people of the district and enter collaborations. They organised a café in an empty building to invite people to talk about the future of the neighbourhood.

With support of LabNorth they were able to test their views with the local users, residents and urban policy makers of Brussels region for their S scale intervention. On the L scale students individually designed a public space that would connect the North Quarter to the surrounding areas and fit with their overall vision for the district. On XL scale the students envisioned to ‘create a city’ which investigated a top down thinking and bottom up moving that in the future allows the people to create the identity of the place.

BRU Studio S.L.XL. / KU Leuven Fig 60

72

The students have produced a multitude of research and information that can contribute to the transformation, including more direct recolections of how the district is used and with proposals and suggestions from a new persepective. A persepective that seems to be appreciated for fresh eyes and for creative solutions that usually are limited due to the realities of the problem.

New Location, New Teaching Temporary use, experimentation and teaching share many elements and aspects that constitute of learning outcomes for the future of architecture education and practice. With the WTC being used as temporary educational space, it has transformed the form of teaching into another level, a 1:1 scale activation of the site for academics and temporary users. It has become a process of activating, experimenting and implementing, both in terms of the school at the WTC but also for the student work happening at the centre of their research questions. This becomes a new model of academic practice, where we generate impact through teaching creating a link between academic and practical.

By locating students at the centre of the challenge, they were able to open a public debate, interaction with various people and actors. Students were able to go beyond idealistic visions to practical solutions and real-life challenges, while exploring the role of the architect themselves. Similarly, to the IABR 20182020 theme and focus on linking theory and practice by implementation. The WTC as a test site, was also referred to as an island – a place for both dreaming and failing in a safe environment for students and a source for inspiration and an escape for professionals. In a way

a theoretical safe space up above the real challenges, where the users can experiment and then bring their ideas down to earth where they become solutions. It became a place for new forms of critical engagement, confrontation and collaboration of the users and actors of NQ. Placing people with different interests in the same space can cause tensions or new relationships leading to creative solutions, also forcing reflection on the current practice and role of architects and architecture. This was however limited on daily bases as the only common space was the roof terrace or the elevator for spontaneous interactions or living the same world. A test site in terms of architecture also meant the building changes according to needs of new users and experimentation for redesign that can be tested on 1:1, setting an example for building and material reuse. Lastly, temporary occupancy, like architecture education at the WTC, is a form of experimentation, to learn lessons of what the identity is/should be and as a form of analysis and trial of what these can become in the future. Showing the way teaching is changing and needs different environment, same way working style and office buildings are changing, and most of all the North District.

Student experience

Towards Inclusive Gentrification studio / KU Leuven Policy Whispering Studio / KU Leuven

floor 24 LUCA School of Arts

Fig 61 This studio was organised by Alive Architecture in collaboration with Lab North & Perspective.

Brussels.

Manhappen / KU Leuven The inclusion of the school has been a benefit for both sides, students and LabNorth; one learning of real challenges, the other of potential for transformation.

Question is to what extent this will be carreid foreward to the future?

It was a part of the project Solidary Affordable Housing for the homeless.

Through developing, testing and refining a model for co-creation and building of a solidary mobile home, the studio addressed many challenges; affordable housing for the homeless, uniting them into a community, social interaction and networks in the neighbourhood and the issue of vacant space in Brussels.

During the studio, the students collaborated with the locals, the homeless and refugees as well as interacted with other actors and occupiers at the WTC, such as Samenlivingsopbouw. The public was invited to a one-day workshop at the WTC, to find solutions that can meet all the needs.

Solidary Mobile Housing Design Studio / KU Leuven

From the many interviews with students about the WTC24 experience there are both positive and negative emotions emerging among students mixed as the time passed by. The first feelings of excitement and improvement from the old building, an appreciation of the open space, possibilities and different open hours that students could use the building where a step up to meet their needs. However soon it also became a pain as in the short time the school had organised this, really becoming a test, the staff has not been able to arrange and organise studios in the physical space.

Therefore, it was left to the students as a learning opportunity, or just passing off responsibility. On one hand, it was an additional concern, but also became a form of connecting and identifying with the workplace and finding their own arrangements that worked, stimulating and intensifying conversation and work rather than comfort, so the school thought. However, some students felt that will all this burden of having to manage the space and everything themselves, their work suffered more. They did appreciate and gained much more from being at the site; getting closer to the people and actors involved, seeing their actions have an impact, understanding the context better and connecting with it to a level that it really mattered.

This experience became the inspiration for Pilot BXL, a group of students and ex-students, who after proposed to redesign the ‘Meurop’ building in open conversation with the staff. Further it initiated the formation of OC Brussels (Education Committee) on the institution level. This shows what impact a temporary use can have and how experimentation can lead to change while also showed how conversation and collaboration can improve when searching for a common goal.

Adaptive Reuse Program Masterclass / Uni. Hasselt This masterclass was led by Freek Persyn and Dieter Leyssen from the University of Hasselt as part of the Adaptive Reuse program before the temporary occupancy and before the new development proposal.

It contained different lessons of different topics. In one it focused on the conditions of the WTC and rose many questions of the interaction between the building and outdoor space. Another focus has also been on the classic axes of the district. The axis that has been the key element in history and development of the area, one that now is also a question for urban public space design and mobility. The main question of the lesson was how to make the Bolivar axis the main axis of the district rather than the Albert II axis. Another lesson was focused on the programs and defined functions of post modernistic district with reflection on adaptable and multifunctional uses. At this studio, many actors were invited, including the Bouwmeester, architects, activists, and owners of the building to debate and reflect on 5 main goals/objectives for the district.

73

Outcomes from Temporary Uses at WTC and NQ who/what Action

Outcome

Agenda North • activating the WTC and neighbourhood • creating a lively atmosphere • attracting the public

• events and cultural activities

You are Here, IABR 2018-2020 • new perspectives on the district • tools to help implement change • collaboration between actors, private-public

• exhibition in 3 parts • urban debate programme • shared workspace

Do You North?

• • • • •

• “North Plek”- urban furniture and info boards on Bolivar square • urban garden

inform the people about the ongoing activities activating public space testing the needs and wants of the neighbourhood attracting the public inclusion of refugees

“North District, next step?“ • new view of the issues in the NQ • suggestions for improvement with focus on short term action • collaboration between actors, private-public

• 2 day workshop with actors and external experts

74

Cafe North • • • • •

• workshops for municipality and regional development • events and cultural activities • 1 idea for neighbourhood = 1 free coffee

collaboration between actors, private-public activating the ground floor creating lively atmosphere participation of the public considering the needs and wants of the neighbourhood

Marcel Bike Cafe • • • •

• cafe with local products • bike repair space for the public

testing the needs and wants of the neighbourhood social integration through common interest reuse and recycling slow mobility and bike priority

Pool is cool • attracting the public • testing the needs and wants of the neighbourhood • activating public space

• one day pool in the public space • fountain swimming sessions

Alive Architecture • Farm Truck, a kitchen, workshop, cinema on wheels, brought to the NQ

• • • •

collaboration of designer and locals co-creation and participatory process inclusion of locals and refugees activating public space

Irma Farma • goat meadow, vegetable garden and a treehouse on the pedestal of the WTC towers 1 and 2 • build yourself concept

• activating the rooftop and improve bare look of the office towers • diversity of functions • public participation in the process • urban gardening as sustainable concept

who/what Action

Outcome

GRUE • • • •

• testing devices at the WTC and public space to collect water and use it in public space • solving heat peaks and providing cooling element

insipration for public space design and architecture sustianble solutions for water management improving identity as sustainabile possible new collaboration

Illegal Brewery • attracting the public • activating the rooftop and improve bare look of the office towers • creating a lively atmosphere and forming idnetity • collaboration between users and mixed purpose

• open bar on the podium • making beers to finance artistic projects

Grizzly Films • • • •

• video projection of a 3D mapping • collaborates with a company that uses multimedia technology to enhance public space • event shared with Illegal Brewery

insipration for public space design identifing sites for improvement use of technology and forming identity collaboration between users

Ladiv Production • • • • • •

• covers events and progress of LabNorth through radio • sound room for public access • weekly live music at lunch breaks at ground floor

communicating information to the public transparency of actions publicly accessible activity activitaing the ground floor attracting the public creating a lively atmosphere

Nansen • • • •

• provide legal advice to refugees • set up info sessions to inform about the situation of the refugees and asylum seekers

inlusion of refugees into the NQ communicating information to the public clarify misconceptions about the migrant issue collaboration between users

Dreamocracy • identify projects in the neighbourhood that could be better • propose a new design from scratch

• identifing sites for improvement • inspiration for new solutions • identifying current needs

Samenlivingsopbouw • Woonbox Project, a modular building system that converts buildings into living units

• highlighting the housing issue • inspiration for cheap and efficient housing units • proposal for transformation of vacant buildings, tools to implement change

studio BRU.S.L.XL. • proposals on small scale, architectural/ urabn scale and neighbourhood vision • field interventions • presented work to other actors

• inspiration for future district and smal interventions • public participation • testing the needs and wants of the neighbourhood • collaboration between actors

Solidary Mobile Housing Design Studio • developing, testing and refining a model for co-creation and building of a solidary mobile home

• • • •

highlighting the housing issue public participation collaboration between users collaboration between actors

Adaptive Reuse Program Masterclass • focus on Bolivar axis as the main axis of NQ • interaction between building and outdoor space • reflected on defined functions vs adaptable and multifunctional uses • debates on 5 main goals with actors

• importance of public space and surrounding • new ideas on urban flows, transit, connectivity of NQ • collaboration between actors

75

Outcomes from Temporary Uses at WTC and NQ who/what Action

Outcome

Agenda North • activating the WTC and neighbourhood • creating a lively atmosphere • attracting the public

• events and cultural activities

Still waiting to see this urban furniture move to a different location.... or does it now belong only to the WTC I to increase activity there, ie. increase chances for profit for the owners?

You are Here, IABR 2018-2020 • new perspectives on the district • tools to help implement change • collaboration between actors, private-public

• exhibition in 3 parts • urban debate programme • shared workspace

Do You North?

• • • • •

• “North Plek”- urban furniture and info boards on Bolivar square • urban garden

76

The outcome could have been a bit more tangible, not only being a place to start initiatives but also a place for feedback.

Great incentive for people to participate though.

inform the people about the ongoing activities activating public space testing the needs and wants of the neighbourhood attracting the public inclusion of refugees

“North District, next step?“ • new view of the issues in the NQ • suggestions for improvement with focus on short term action • collaboration between actors, private-public

• 2 day workshop with actors and external experts

Cafe North • • • • •

• workshops for municipality and regional development • events and cultural activities • 1 idea for neighbourhood = 1 free coffee

collaboration between actors, private-public activating the ground floor creating lively atmosphere participation of the public considering the needs and wants of the neighbourhood

Marcel Bike Cafe This temporary use had many elements that could change the character of the NQ, however they left after a year. Perhaps the initiative was too drastically different to be fully integrated and fit well with the current state.

The one of very few temporary users that incorporated public participation in their initiative!

• • • •

• cafe with local products • bike repair space for the public

testing the needs and wants of the neighbourhood social integration through common interest reuse and recycling slow mobility and bike priority

Pool is cool • attracting the public • testing the needs and wants of the neighbourhood • activating public space

• one day pool in the public space • fountain swimming sessions

Alive Architecture • Farm Truck, a kitchen, workshop, cinema on wheels, brought to the NQ

• • • •

collaboration of designer and locals co-creation and participatory process inclusion of locals and refugees activating public space

Irma Farma • goat meadow, vegetable garden and a treehouse on the pedestal of the WTC towers 1 and 2 • build yourself concept

• activating the rooftop and improve bare look of the office towers • diversity of functions • public participation in the process • urban gardening as sustainable concept

It would be beneficial to have in NQ for defining the Belgian identity while contributing to local economy and culture.

Thanks to these types of users it could make NQ symbolic and a place to go to too experience what Brussels is about.

who/what Action

Outcome

GRUE • • • •

• testing devices at the WTC and public space to collect water and use it in public space • solving heat peaks and providing cooling element

insipration for public space design and architecture sustianble solutions for water management improving identity as sustainabile possible new collaboration

Illegal Brewery • attracting the public • activating the rooftop and improve bare look of the office towers • creating a lively atmosphere and forming idnetity • collaboration between users and mixed purpose

• open bar on the podium • making beers to finance artistic projects

Grizzly Films If the new identity is also transforming with technological advancement and lifestyle changes, why not test these sound and media installations on the public space and facades of the NQ? Ironically it would be a reference to Manhattan identity, but could be a temporary attraction and an experiment.

• • • •

• video projection of a 3D mapping • collaborates with a company that uses multimedia technology to enhance public space • event shared with Illegal Brewery

insipration for public space design identifing sites for improvement use of technology and forming identity collaboration between users

Ladiv Production • • • • • •

• covers events and progress of LabNorth through radio • sound room for public access • weekly live music at lunch breaks at ground floor

deserves a place at WTC and ZIN!

communicating information to the public transparency of actions publicly accessible activity activitaing the ground floor attracting the public creating a lively atmosphere

Nansen • • • •

• provide legal advice to refugees • set up info sessions to inform about the situation of the refugees and asylum seekers

inlusion of refugees into the NQ communicating information to the public clarify misconceptions about the migrant issue collaboration between users

Dreamocracy • identify projects in the neighbourhood that could be better • propose a new design from scratch

• identifing sites for improvement • inspiration for new solutions • identifying current needs

Samenlivingsopbouw This is something that can be taken foreward as a temporary use of vacant buildings before the transformations of the next buildings in the NQ. Clearly it is physically possible to do. Question is the legal concerns.

• Woonbox Project, a modular building system that converts buildings into living units

• highlighting the housing issue • inspiration for cheap and efficient housing units • proposal for transformation of vacant buildings, tools to implement change

studio BRU.S.L.XL. • proposals on small scale, architectural/ urabn scale and neighbourhood vision • field interventions • presented work to other actors

• inspiration for future district and smal interventions • public participation • testing the needs and wants of the neighbourhood • collaboration between actors

Solidary Mobile Housing Design Studio • developing, testing and refining a model for co-creation and building of a solidary mobile home

• • • •

highlighting the housing issue public participation collaboration between users collaboration between actors

Adaptive Reuse Program Masterclass • focus on Bolivar axis as the main axis of NQ • interaction between building and outdoor space • reflected on defined functions vs adaptable and multifunctional uses • debates on 5 main goals with actors

• importance of public space and surrounding • new ideas on urban flows, transit, connectivity of NQ • collaboration between actors

77

Lessons Learnt from Temporary Uses at WTC and NQ

new sites for improvement

tools to implement change

different perspective on NQ

public-private collaboration

social integration of different users, especially refugees

78

informing the public and transparency of action

public participation

cocreation between designer and locals

events and public access to create lively atmosphere and attract people open ground floors

activating roof top relationship of building to outdoor space

activating public space

collaboration between occupants

new and external collaborations

multi-occupancy

urban gardening water management

environmental sustainability concepts

reuse/recycling

79

identity search/ creation

diversity

design inspiration

housing issue

needs of the neighbourhood

refugee issue

mobility and connecitivity

Lessons Learnt from Temporary Uses at WTC and NQ Were these lessons really learned and taken from temporary occupancy and their projects?

new sites for improvement

definitely not visible in the ZIN project and intentions for further district development is not very clear, probably as there is no masterplan.

But what about participatory process and public meetings for how the district should develop?

80

tools to implement change

different perspective on NQ

public-private collaboration

social integration of different users, especially refugees

informing the public and transparency of action cocreation between It is yet to be seen what designer and locals kind of events and activities for the public will take place at the ZIN! It would be shocking if this was not a lesson taken from many activities that took place in this time and attracted people making the district less boring.

public participation it seems to play a huge part, but does not show through in the ZIN project or any future plans for the district

events and public access to create lively atmosphere and attract people open ground floors

activating roof top relationship of building to outdoor space

activating public space

Its been said that zebra concept came from temporary occupancy, but how? The distribution of users and their interaction has been limited, with little collaboration between them.

A lot of the design ideas for the ZIN proposal seem to come from generic concepts and needed transformations rather than more direct connections to the temporary occupancy. The other lessons that were learnt could be seen in the process, however this is only reflected on after the fact.

collaboration between occupants

new and external collaborations

multi-occupancy

urban gardening water management

Diversity is an indirect lesson from the whole process however it has not been implemented to a far extent.

environmental sustainability concepts

reuse/recycling

identity search/ creation

diversity

design inspiration

housing issue

needs of the neighbourhood It was a multioccupancy temporary use to test functions, however apart from the school and a cafe, there did not seem to be functions that could potentially stay, especially not in the building.

81

this issue has been addressed by some of the occupants, however with no direct link to LabNorth or future plan.

Was it ever the intention to deal with this issue or it was just an image?

refugee issue

mobility and connecitivity

What is the role of LabNorth in the process of developing the NQ? How much have the stakeholders impacted development?

Fig 62

Fig 63

Are immigrants considered in future plans?

82

Are they just unwanted and ignored users of the NQ?

Fig 64

What is this transformation leading to?

What are the next steps and who is involved?

Fig 65

Fig 66

Has the public been involved in the process of development?

Who are the current and future users of the NQ? Who is the new development for and how inclusive will it be?

Fig 67

Fig 68

Has there been transparency and collaboration between users, management, and the public?

83

Future of Temporary Use in NQ What are the roles of public vs private bodies?

Who has the power in the process?

Has there been a shift in public and private collaboration?

Fig 69

Fig 70

84

From no identity to an experimental district. Let’s change the image of the NQ.

Left in the hands of private owners, they had to take action to change the perception of the district. LabNorth has been working around the neighbourhood to improve its image from a corporate monofunctional district to a hybrid inclusive area.

Who has been contributing to this test site and how?

Up4North and Lab North In the absence of global vision for the Noordwijk, the non-profit organisation Up4North was created with the aim to improve the perception of the district, so that investors remain interested.

It was initiated in 2016 by AG Real Estate and Befimmo, as a shared initiative of nine major real estate property owners present in the North District: AG Real Estate, Allianz Benelux, AXA Belgium, Banimmo, Befimmo, Belfius Insurance, Immobel, Triuva Belgium and Engie.

Up4North is co-creating the long-term future of the district with the partners of LabNorth and public authorities, perspective.brussels and Bouwmeestermaitrearchitecte. This will be done through the so-called, inclusive governance structure that will guide the transformation process of the district. The inclusive governance can refer to the recent action to improve cooperation between private and public sectors, public authorities, as well as the collaborations of Up4North, meaning real estate owners, Jaspers Eyers, 514NE, sociocultural stakeholders, employees, inhabitants and others. However, exclusivity still seems present in this inclusiveness and the planning bodies.

While working on the long-term shared vision for the future, they also co-create on short term strategies, implementing and testing initiatives, among them;

Café North – participatory workshops organised beforehand to analyse the neighbourhood and the needs

These are mainly organised by members of the LabNorth coalition and its other initiatives.

LabNorth was founded by Up4North, together with 514NE, think-and-do-tank Architecture Workroom and Brussels and the Parisian design agency Vraiment Vraiment. They work in and on the North district to change its original business function into a more inclusive place, a human, hybrid and mixed used district. The association, Lab North, aims to bring positive dynamics to the public space and make the neighbourhood interesting through the presence of artists and sociocultural initiatives.

LabNorth wants to start from the many tests and ideas of the past two years, to see what worked and what did not, to create a solid concept and vision for the future.

LabNorth plays a facilitator role in bringing together the heads of the municipalities and the Region in workshops and meetings. They initiated the collaboration between different actors. They are also playing that role in balancing the needs of the public and private actors; therefore, it could be said they also bring these two groups to work together or at least consider their importance. The idea is that when public funds can be invested in the neighbourhood, then the input and knowledge of LabNorth and its collaborators can be used and bringing private, public and civil society actors together. This seems like an ideal scenario, however also seems to place this in the future rather than an action that needs to start now and it still revolves around money and financing the development which is a question of responsibility for what is and will happen.

Platform north – a temporary occupation project Agenda North – program for events and strengthening the social fabric

Belfimo (Owner)

Up4North (NPO)

‘Lab North’ (association)

Platform North

Fig 71

85

Fig 70

86

From no identity to an experimental district. Let’s change the image of the NQ.

The collaborations of LabNorth with the community organisations is not very visible in any sources, while there are many concerned with NQ development.

Perhaps the missing link is no micro scale community organisation that could stimulate better relationships and integration with this group.

Left in the hands of private owners, they had to take action to change the perception of the district. LabNorth has been working around the neighbourhood to improve its image from a corporate monofunctional district to a hybrid inclusive area.

Who has been contributing to this test site and how?

It is a very complex network of collaborations that is hard to simplify with lacking insight into the processes and the contributions of each organisation. How exactly do they link and to what extent do they actually work together?

In the absence of global vision for the Noordwijk, the These are mainly organised by members of the non-profit organisation Up4North was created with LabNorth coalition and its other initiatives. the aim to improve the perception of the district, so LabNorth was founded by Up4North, together with that investors remain interested.

514NE, think-and-do-tank Architecture Workroom and Brussels and the Parisian design agency It was initiated in 2016 by AG Real Estate and Vraiment Vraiment. They work in and on the North Befimmo, as a shared initiative of nine major real district to change its original business function into estate property owners present in the North District: a more inclusive place, a human, hybrid and mixed AG Real Estate, Allianz Benelux, AXA Belgium, used district. The association, Lab North, aims to Banimmo, Befimmo, Belfius Insurance, Immobel, bring positive dynamics to the public space and Triuva Belgium and Engie. make the neighbourhood interesting through the presence of artists and sociocultural initiatives.

Up4North is co-creating the long-term future LabNorth wants to start from the many tests and of the district with the partners of LabNorth ideas of the past two years, to see what worked and and public authorities, perspective.brussels and what did not, to create a solid concept and vision for Bouwmeestermaitrearchitecte. This will be done the future. through the so-called, inclusive governance structure that will guide the transformation process LabNorth plays a facilitator role in bringing of the district. The inclusive governance can refer to together the heads of the municipalities and the the recent action to improve cooperation between Region in workshops and meetings. They initiated private and public sectors, public authorities, as the collaboration between different actors. They well as the collaborations of Up4North, meaning are also playing that role in balancing the needs real estate owners, Jaspers Eyers, 514NE, socioof the public and private actors; therefore, it could cultural stakeholders, employees, inhabitants and be said they also bring these two groups to work others. However, exclusivity still seems present in together or at least consider their importance. The this inclusiveness and the planning bodies. idea is that when public funds can be invested in the neighbourhood, then the input and knowledge While working on the long-term shared vision of LabNorth and its collaborators can be used and 87 for the future, they also co-create on short term bringing private, public and civil society actors strategies, implementing and testing initiatives, together. This seems like an ideal scenario, however among them; also seems to place this in the future rather than an action that needs to start now and it still revolves Café North – participatory workshops organised around money and financing the development beforehand to analyse the neighbourhood and which is a question of responsibility for what is and the needs will happen.

Up4North and LabNorth give an Platform north – a temporary occupation project imporession of a mediator and link between differents actors, however they Agenda North – program for events and are representing one of them! Their strengthening the social fabric Fig 71 intentions can be questionable, although they do work with both private and public interests.

Up4North and Lab North

Belfimo (Owner)

Up4North (NPO)

‘Lab North’ (association)

Platform North

Perspective.brussels main goal is to integrate the developments around the North Quarter, as the current plans, CRU 1& 2 and PAS MAX, are separated from each other by the central business district without a development plan or a vision. Therefore, a shared vision would help to include it in the developments and connect them better, merging the PAD MAX and North business district.

Perspective.brussels role is to cocreate the coherent vision to link to the surrounding developments as well as physical links and common character in developments.

perspective.brussels

La Ville de Bruxelles One area that La Ville de Bruxelles (city of brussels) has been working on to improve is the housing area around Parc Maximilien focusing on the green area between and links to the surrounding green space, by including sport areas, possible renovation of housing and improving natural areas.

The commune of Saint Josse has been developing public spaces, including esplanade SaintLazare, Place Rogier and the public swimming pool which is closed since 2010. They have also worked on more housing and the silver tower for more offices and commerce. Along side they are fighting unemployment and social security by strengthening local economy.

municipality of Saint Jose

88

Fig 74 Fig 72

public authorities The public authority’s role is to define a common vision of development for the area and give guidelines and requirements to other actors involved to make sure the social, economic and environmental needs are met. These are many public service organisations concerned with different aspects of development. The most direct collaborations of LabNorth include the 3 municipalities, Brussels region, Perspective.

Brussels and Bouwmeester maitre architecte team.

The urban policy actors met in summer 2018 with LabNorth at the WTC, to discuss toolkits that take into account the non-standard process and outcomes, these could refer to changing business models and future development requirements. The public authorities as a legal body need to enforce the vision and these changes onto the private sector, by imposing taxation schemes, permits or regulations.

What is essential to success, is a partnership between public and private bodies, as well as the combination of bottom-up and top-down approaches, to include te public but also control development in a direction for the common good.

Fig 73

municipality of Schaerbeek citydev.brussels Citydev.brussels is a public service institution that aims to attract and retain high-added-value companies and middleincome households to the Brussels-Capital Region with the goal that together, they contribute to the economic and urban development.

The commune of Schaerbeek has been developing plans to improve connectivity to the neighbourhood and across the train tracks in their regional mobility plan, GoodMove. This includes works on the train station, improving tunnels and links to the business district and new tram lines around the area to connect to Molenbeek.

Besustainable. brussels Besustainable.brussels looks at concepts of urban metabolism and systems in the city, linking actors, resources and conditions together. The goal is to move towards a circular economy in aspects of organic waste, mobility, food and construction.

Bouwmeester maitre architecte team ‘are responsible for assisting, advising and encouraging public and private clients, to ensure the quality of regional public projects in terms of architecture, urban planning and public space. That role was now extended to projects carried out by the municipalities and the private sector, given that these have a major impact on the urban development of Brussels.’

terms of social interactions, sustainability, economic use of resources, promoting community life and sharing value for all parties.

- Cross-disciplinarily and independence – the goal of the Bouwmeester is to bring all parties together, the public actors, private actors as well as the city level inhabitants, users, civic society organisations, while remaining neutral and independent in his Their approach follows 4 main aspects; views in discussions to ensure coherent - ensuring spatial quality – development. through ensuring proper and transparent - Taking action – ensure the discussions, projects must add value in ambitious are translated to action through high quality competition culture.

- Expanding their presence – the Bouwmeester maitre need is for more support before and after architecte project conception, improving spatial understanding through research by design and monitoring projects through the process to their completion.

At the WTC, when the lease ended it was a chance for the Brussels Government Architect to stimulate and direct private market players towards a more attractive urban project to take into account quality of life and diversity, therefore becoming an example project for the future.

Fig 76 89

Fig 77 Fig 75

Brussels Mobilite Brussles Mobilite is concerned with the public space and connectivity in the area aiming to open up the district and lower traffic. Their projects include the pedestrian and bike bridge, new tram lines across the district and extension of metro line, small ring bike lanes and optimising and improving pedestrian connections and public spaces, incl. project Maximilien, Bolivar and parc Armateurs.

Brussels Environment.brussels Brussels Environment.Brussels has been focused on the Projet Urbain MAX-SUR-SENNE, offering diversity on the riverbank and restoring natural spaces. The goal is to create urban eco parks with natural water management strategies to increase biodiversity and ecological value in the district while offer public space and possibly agriculture and urban farming projects, done by Atelier Groot Eiland and LabNorth.

Sau-msi.brussels is responsible for carrying out major urban development projects and constructing public facilities of regional significance to benefit and meet the needs and aspirations of Brussels’ inhabitants, businesses and visitors. Their role is also to act as a project coordinator, by orchestrating the actions of different public or private partners.

sau-msi.brussels

Perspective.brussels main goal is to integrate the developments around the La Ville de Bruxelles North Quarter, as the current plans, One area that La Ville de Bruxelles (city of brussels) CRU 1& 2 and PAS MAX, are separated has been working on to improve is the housing area from each other by the central business around Parc Maximilien focusing on the green area district without a development plan or a between and links to the surrounding green space, vision. Therefore, a shared vision would by including sport areas, possible renovation of help to include it in the developments housing and improving natural areas. and connect them better, merging the PAD MAX and North business district.

Perspective.brussels role is to cocreate the coherent vision to link to the surrounding developments as well as physical links and common character in developments.

The POLITICIAN in the The commune of Saint Josse has been developing movie ‘WTC A Love Story’ public spaces, including esplanade Saintperspective.brussels is presented as a character Lazare, Place Rogier and the public swimming that theoretically has the pool which is closed since 2010. They have also power, but cannot seem to worked on more housing and the silver tower for exercise it and dictate the more offices and commerce. Along side they are rules, as if they are afraid fighting unemployment and social security by of a potential loss of the strengthening local economy. developer and his interest.

municipality of Saint Jose

In later part of the post-viewing, it is clear that this is the issue, but both the politician and the investor put up an act and pretend like there is no problem and they collaborate well.

90

Fig 74 Fig 72

public authorities The public authority’s role is to define a common vision of development for the area and give guidelines and requirements to other actors involved to make sure the social, economic and environmental needs are met. These are many public service organisations concerned with different aspects of development. The most direct collaborations of LabNorth include the 3 municipalities, Brussels region, Perspective.

Brussels and Bouwmeester maitre architecte team.

The urban policy actors met in summer 2018 with LabNorth at the WTC, to discuss toolkits that take into account the non-standard process and outcomes, these could refer to changing business models and future development requirements. The public authorities as a legal body need to enforce the vision and these changes onto the private sector, by imposing taxation schemes, permits or regulations.

What is essential to success, is a partnership between public and private bodies, as well as the combination of bottom-up and top-down approaches, to include te public but also control development in a direction for the common good.

Fig 73

municipality of Schaerbeek citydev.brussels Citydev.brussels is a public service institution that aims to attract and retain high-added-value companies and middleincome households to the Brussels-Capital Region with the goal that together, they contribute to the economic and urban development.

The commune of Schaerbeek has been developing plans to improve connectivity to the neighbourhood and across the train tracks in their regional mobility plan, GoodMove. This includes works on the train station, improving tunnels and links to the business district and new tram lines around the area to connect to Molenbeek.

Besustainable. brussels Besustainable.brussels looks at concepts of urban metabolism and systems in the city, linking actors, resources and conditions together. The goal is to move towards a circular economy in aspects of organic waste, mobility, food and construction.

Represented in the movie ‘WTC A Love Story’ the role of the BOUWMEESTER seems to be the link bewtween all the other actors and has the best overview trying to balance their interests. Sadly it is clear that he does not possess the power for decision making nor can he be brutally honest. He can only advocate for alternative procedures.

He does see the benefit of the ZIN project and need for transformation on the greater scale, including the exsisting challenges.

Bouwmeester maitre architecte team ‘are responsible for assisting, advising and encouraging public and private clients, to ensure the quality of regional public projects in terms of architecture, urban planning and public space. That role was now extended to projects carried out by the municipalities and the private sector, given that these have a major impact on the urban development of Brussels.’

terms of social interactions, sustainability, economic use of resources, promoting community life and sharing value for all parties.

- Cross-disciplinarily and independence – the goal of the Bouwmeester is to bring all parties together, the public actors, private actors as well as the city level inhabitants, users, civic society organisations, while remaining neutral and independent in his Their approach follows 4 main aspects; views in discussions to ensure coherent - ensuring spatial quality – development. through ensuring proper and transparent - Taking action – ensure the discussions, projects must add value in ambitious are translated to action through high quality competition culture.

- Expanding their presence – the Bouwmeester maitre need is for more support before and after architecte project conception, improving spatial understanding through research by design and monitoring projects through the process to their completion.

At the WTC, when the lease ended it was a chance for the Brussels Government Architect to stimulate and direct private market players towards a more attractive urban project to take into account quality of life and diversity, therefore becoming an example project for the future.

Fig 76

Fig 75

Brussels Mobilite Brussles Mobilite is concerned with the public space and connectivity in the area aiming to open up the district and lower traffic. Their projects include the pedestrian and bike bridge, new tram lines across the district and extension of metro line, small ring bike lanes and optimising and improving pedestrian connections and public spaces, incl. project Maximilien, Bolivar and parc Armateurs.

To defend the collaborations between the main actors, they explain that the whole process is collaborative and there is no vision for the district, it has been a brainstorming session over concrete plans and proposals. Where is the logic in this and how do they talk about solutions without the big picture?

91

Fig 77

Brussels Environment.brussels Brussels Environment.Brussels has been focused on the Projet Urbain MAX-SUR-SENNE, offering diversity on the riverbank and restoring natural spaces. The goal is to create urban eco parks with natural water management strategies to increase biodiversity and ecological value in the district while offer public space and possibly agriculture and urban farming projects, done by Atelier Groot Eiland and LabNorth.

Sau-msi.brussels is responsible for carrying out major urban development projects and constructing public facilities of regional significance to benefit and meet the needs and aspirations of Brussels’ inhabitants, businesses and visitors. Their role is also to act as a project coordinator, by orchestrating the actions of different public or private partners.

sau-msi.brussels

Befimmo, as the main initiator and owner of the WTCI tower is one of the key stakeholders in the development.

Their business model is about ‘providing places to work, meet, share and live’, following the current trends in changing working and living, including emerging new technologies and digital revolution, talent attraction, work-life balance and well-being, metropolisation, mobility and environmental concerns. They lead a ‘flexible office revolution’ as seen in their new proposal for the ZIN project, along with other aspects that can transform the district. According to Sven Lenaerts,

Befimmo & real estate owners

Befimmo has changed a lot and increased it social responsibility making them more aware and willing to collaborate with public authorities for the benefit of the public. This is said to be an inclusive governance structure in the development and an on-site cocreation process for the ZIN project. However, with other real estate companies, their main priority is to make profit by bringing new users to the district to make it alive again. The temporary occupancy may also be just a tradition profit model to fill vacancy and cover up the major need of change with a hint of good intention, according to city movements Bral and Inter-environmental Brussels along with concerned public.

Fig 62

92

51N4E According to Kristiaan Borret, the partnership 0f Befimmo and Jaspers Eyers with 51N4E, can be a sign of change in political situation, as seen in the increased discussion and assessments with other actors. But there is a certain speculation, if the strive for architectural quality of 51N4E, is not used by the owners as their only way to survival in the market and attraction to their new project. Borret says this is a risk, but they will control the project longer than just competition phase to make sure the project comes to live as planned. Even 51N4E, Persyn says they feared collaboration with Jaspers Eyers, that could result in just a design of the façade.

In the sofa talk, Persyn explains that creation of LabNorth was triggered by ‘The Adaptive Reuse’ workshop and has caused a ‘productive conflict’ as the ideas and concerns of 51N4E and Sven Lenaerts from Up4North, representing the owners, did not align at the beginning. There were reservations about heavy logistics and security, especially for opening the tower’s roof terrace to the public.

However, it must be mentioned that 51N4E approach was also entrepreneurial and as part of the temporary occupancy they had a service contract,

while answering that a school can also have a service contract as they provide experimentation, dialogue and inspiration, it becomes contradicting and questionable why KUL did not have it, while 51N4E did. Further on the relationship with the users, there was not common space set up resulting in only interaction being the elevator, in which case where is the collaboration of users and merging of practice and architectural education? “from a private initiative initially, the project was joined by civil society and then by the academic world, which is more than a conventional urban study would give. …I am not advocating an end to public subsidies, but our approach could allow for a better allocation of available funds based on the current needs and concerns of neighbourhood users.” –Dieter Leyssen, 51N4E “Beyond the local actors, it might be interesting to explore the uses that could be made of the neighbourhood for audiences that are outside it. …to host activities that are difficult to take place in the classic fabric of Brussels, to explore new uses.” Dieter Leyssen

Jaspers Eyers Jaspers-Eyers, an architecture company, well-known in Brussels, for their extensive portfolio of buildings, primarily office towers, and for what could be called a monopoly on real estate development. They have been working on many projects, seeming untouchable until now, when they have to collaborate with 51N4E and a transition to privatepublic cooperation being encouraged, where public authorities begin to insist on their visions and stimulate changes in real estate development. So far JaspersEyers could have gotten away with building what they please, sometimes

Architecture Workroom Brussels This is a think-and-do-tank that is part of the LabNorth association, contributing to the temporary use and creation of a vision for the North Quarter. They have moved into the WTC during the temporary occupation, on a service contract, to be a part of the process on site. Their role and aim were to attract attention to the positive urban project for the North Quarter, showing change towards a good direction and attract people not the building. They have achieved this as they were also curators of the ‘You Are Here’ event at which they have collaborated with different associations, administrations and entrepreneurs. Joachim Declerck views their position at the WTC as weak, considering how the temporary occupancy project ended way before the renovation were to take place and, in his eyes, this proves that the WTC remains a profit-making tool for the owners.

However, he still considers the temporary occupation as a success, as no time before has it reached 18 months and was a multi-tenant occupancy at an office building. In line with LabNorth, he agrees that there need to be a change in the business models to achieve a multispacer usage, rather than a long-term lease guaranteeing profit, which must be led by the authorities insisting and regulating development. Further, his opinion extends to architectural practice itself, that needs to move towards reflection and meaningful narratives rather than external aesthetics, what he calls ‘negationism’. The answer to this, a ‘democracy of doing’; understanding the context, formulating right questions and bringing right people together to collaborate on the transformations.

unnoticed by the public eye. This could cause tension in the collaborations on the ZIN project and further the process to developing it. Their position on the collaboration is not clear in available sources, however one can theorize that Jaspers-Eyers have lost some of their power and are confronted with ideas from other architect, public authorities, LabNorth, temporary occupants and the public. The design has been influenced by many factors, especially temporary users who have made clear the needs for transformation in the architecture and use of the building. These elements, the multi-tenant occupancy, mixed functions leading to the Zebra design, open ground floor and public access are features not seen in many of the previous designs of Jaspers-Eyers. Furthermore, now with the current attraction to the site and public attention and public authorities monitoring closely the development, it would be harder to move away from competition stage proposal and get away what they would normally want. To top it all, the confrontation of Jaspers-Eyers with reality by other actors might cause tension in the collaborations, but also result in changing their current practice.

VraimentVraiment Vraiment Vraiment is part of LabNorth coalition. As a company they focus on activating spaces and inserting new uses into design of public space, reimagining human activities and creating conditions for a liveable future, by looking at the challenging spots of today and future. Their role seems to be as designers at LabNorth, such as for the furniture on the public square.

private actors

93

The role of the investor is always presented as negative, indifferent to others and self centered. It can show through like this, but at certain points it is clear that they also want to be a part of the discussion on an equal level with their interests represented.

Befimmo, as the main initiator and owner of the WTCI tower is one of the key stakeholders in the development.

Their business model is about ‘providing places to work, meet, share and live’, following the current trends in changing working and living, including emerging new technologies and digital revolution, talent attraction, work-life balance and well-being, metropolisation, mobility and environmental concerns. They lead a ‘flexible office revolution’ as seen in their new proposal for the ZIN project, along with other aspects that can transform the district. According to Sven Lenaerts,

Befimmo & real estate owners

94

51N4E

Befimmo has changed a lot and increased it social responsibility making them more aware and willing to collaborate with public authorities for the benefit of the public. This is said to be an inclusive governance structure in the development and an on-site cocreation process for the ZIN project. However, with other real estate companies, their main priority is to make profit by bringing new users to the district to make it alive again. The temporary occupancy may also be just a tradition profit model to fill vacancy and cover up the major need of change with a hint of good intention, according to city movements Bral and Inter-environmental Brussels along with concerned public.

The role of the architect has not been very visible in the research and collaborations represented in the movie. They are the ones influencing the design but they are rather quiet and do not seem to take a huge part in the larger scale collaborations, even though like the Bouwmeester mentions they are the ones who really dictate the design.

According to Kristiaan Borret, the partnership 0f Befimmo and Jaspers Eyers with 51N4E, can be a sign of change in political situation, as seen in the increased discussion and assessments with other actors. But there is a certain speculation, if the strive for architectural quality of 51N4E, is not used by the owners as their only way to survival in the market and attraction to their new project. Borret says this is a risk, but they will control the project longer than just competition phase to make sure the project comes to live as planned. Even 51N4E, Persyn says they feared collaboration with Jaspers Eyers, that could result in just a design of the façade.

In the sofa talk, Persyn explains that creation of LabNorth was triggered by ‘The Adaptive Reuse’ workshop and has caused a ‘productive conflict’ as the ideas and concerns of 51N4E and Sven Lenaerts from Up4North, representing the owners, did not align at the beginning. There were reservations about heavy logistics and security, especially for opening the tower’s roof terrace to the public.

However, it must be mentioned that 51N4E approach was also entrepreneurial and as part of the temporary occupancy they had a service contract,

Fig 62

while answering that a school can also have a service contract as they provide experimentation, dialogue and inspiration, it becomes contradicting and questionable why KUL did not have it, while 51N4E did. Further on the relationship with the users, there was not common space set up resulting in only interaction being the elevator, in which case where is the collaboration of users and merging of practice and architectural education? “from a private initiative initially, the project was joined by civil society and then by the academic world, which is more than a conventional urban study would give. …I am not advocating an end to public subsidies, but our approach could allow for a better allocation of available funds based on the current needs and concerns of neighbourhood users.” –Dieter Leyssen, 51N4E “Beyond the local actors, it might be interesting to explore the uses that could be made of the neighbourhood for audiences that are outside it. …to host activities that are difficult to take place in the classic fabric of Brussels, to explore new uses.” Dieter Leyssen

Jaspers Eyers It is also quite interesting to see that the owner does not know or think of any other actors that could participate in the round table discussions on the future proposal, where as the politician and the Bouwmeester can list in general who else can and should be participating.

Jaspers-Eyers, an architecture company, well-known in Brussels, for their extensive portfolio of buildings, primarily office towers, and for what could be called a monopoly on real estate development. They have been working on many projects, seeming untouchable until now, when they have to collaborate with 51N4E and a transition to privatepublic cooperation being encouraged, where public authorities begin to insist on their visions and stimulate changes in real estate development. So far JaspersEyers could have gotten away with building what they please, sometimes

Architecture Workroom Brussels This is a think-and-do-tank that is part of the LabNorth association, contributing to the temporary use and creation of a vision for the North Quarter. They have moved into the WTC during the temporary occupation, on a service contract, to be a part of the process on site. Their role and aim were to attract attention to the positive urban project for the North Quarter, showing change towards a good direction and attract people not the building. They have achieved this as they were also curators of the ‘You Are Here’ event at which they have collaborated with different associations, administrations and entrepreneurs. Joachim Declerck views their position at the WTC as weak, considering how the temporary occupancy project ended way before the renovation were to take place and, in his eyes, this proves that the WTC remains a profit-making tool for the owners.

However, he still considers the temporary occupation as a success, as no time before has it reached 18 months and was a multi-tenant occupancy at an office building. In line with LabNorth, he agrees that there need to be a change in the business models to achieve a multispacer usage, rather than a long-term lease guaranteeing profit, which must be led by the authorities insisting and regulating development. Further, his opinion extends to architectural practice itself, that needs to move towards reflection and meaningful narratives rather than external aesthetics, what he calls ‘negationism’. The answer to this, a ‘democracy of doing’; understanding the context, formulating right questions and bringing right people together to collaborate on the transformations.

unnoticed by the public eye. This could cause tension in the collaborations on the ZIN project and further the process to developing it. Their position on the collaboration is not clear in available sources, however one can theorize that Jaspers-Eyers have lost some of their power and are confronted with ideas from other architect, public authorities, LabNorth, temporary occupants and the public. The design has been influenced by many factors, especially temporary users who have made clear the needs for transformation in the architecture and use of the building. These elements, the multi-tenant occupancy, mixed functions leading to the Zebra design, open ground floor and public access are features not seen in many of the previous designs of Jaspers-Eyers. Furthermore, now with the current attraction to the site and public attention and public authorities monitoring closely the development, it would be harder to move away from competition stage proposal and get away what they would normally want. To top it all, the confrontation of Jaspers-Eyers with reality by other actors might cause tension in the collaborations, but also result in changing their current practice.

The impression of the designers, representing LabNorth as well, in the movie at least, seemed to be showing how they may have good ideas but are not very good at standing up for it and confronting the ‘bigger’ players.

VraimentVraiment Vraiment Vraiment is part of LabNorth coalition. As a company they focus on activating spaces and inserting new uses into design of public space, reimagining human activities and creating conditions for a liveable future, by looking at the challenging spots of today and future. Their role seems to be as designers at LabNorth, such as for the furniture on the public square.

private actors

95

Temporary users have played an enormous part in the process to develop the area as they have provided LabNorth with their research and ideas for how to transform it. Not only that, they had a direct impact on the current situation and the public, attracting people to the site, showing transformation is taking place and for some, helping and bringing in the common voice into the discussion. Some even tried to tackle greater issues and highlight them to LabNorth and the private owners, which was not necessarily received well by the individuals.

LabNorth however, takes pride in how they have been a part of their work by an indirect contribution, by initiating many of these projects and letting the users in to the WTC, bringing them together to do exactly that. A controversial topic is the 2 types of contracts, some being service providers (AWB)

temporary users

others a normal tenant (KUL) which shows the need for profit and inequality between tenants, though still LabNorth retains that most users were there for free or for very cheap rent. Many question the position of Befimmo on this, asking if they as users have not provided anything in return and if Befimmo did not benefit from their presence, which they did but perhaps not visible directly at this point. Big question now, is how these users will collaborate with the other actors after the temporary occupancy.

Until now their role was in the range of doing small projects and providing knowledge, now it seems they have been put aside as the future development of the WTC is in place, in which they did not have a say whatsoever. They had to move out in January 2019, a year before any work on the building was to take place, because of the running costs that outweigh the benefits of the users. LabNorth did not find a place for these organisations at the new WTC, or around the neighbourhood, but has brought them into the LabNorth 2.0 organisation where they become more active members. The struggle of LabNorth is that they do not know yet what business model or governance is needed to sustain them, for example students and a school, in the area in the long term.

the users 96

Fig 78

The district is the result of a top-down approach of public and private actors, without consideration for the users or participatory processes, therefore lacking services for certain users. As the most important stakeholder of the North District, this group should have been involved much more in the collaborations for the development, through participatory projects, open meetings and through the development stages. Their voice however is not very prominent in the research, and the value placed on it, is not visible in the future development.

The public has been involved to some extent in the process, mostly through initiatives of LabNorth and Platform North temporary occupancy as well as public meetings with municipalities.

Students of KU Leuven were working with different users to develop their views of the future in their studios, where they have been analysing the North quarter and its complex history. Students and LabNorth become mediators, but there is

Fig 79

public and locals no one having responsibility for the future development and for the incorporation of their perspective. There are many different types of users of the district: employees and public servants, residents of all ages, students, backpackers, visitors and immigrants. Despite the efforts of some temporary users, refugees remain on the side-line and LabNorth and private actors maintain that it is a political debate that they are not a part of and cannot do anything. Some initiatives however have integrated this group and the locals, like the IABR or urban gardening, though this was in a form of participation rather than collaboration.

“Looking for Smallness in Bigness” This was an interview by Bjorn Houttekier with Marie-Anais Bluteau from Vraiment Vraiment and Sven Lenaerts from Up4North. The interview covered the reasons for transformation of the North Quarter, the urban experimentation approach and its value and the role of KU Leuven. The interview can be found on p.223 in ‘WTC Tower Teachings’.

Where did the idea originate?

Lack of vision from municipalities. Not so much about receiving compensation but force recognition of changing situation on the rental market. Old business of long-term tenants did not work anymore.

Was Up4North born out of fear?

The signal from the market situation was undeniable, but no one was forced to set up the organisation.

It was not set up for short term solutions but for a future oriented vision.

Was the vision and process driven by real estate owners, how much freedom did you have?

The aim was of course to monetise the existing buildings, but there was not much involvement of the initiators of the NPO. They wanted to brand the NQ as experimental, but it was not just a commercial gloss. It was done through experimental initiatives and collaboration on many levels. Not a carte blanche, but considerable amount of freedom, ex. setting up a coalition LabNorth with architects and designers.

What was the selection process of temporary users?

Platform North launched a call for renting offices.

They received about 70 applications and assessed them based on 5 criteria (do not mention which) but their vision for the NQ was important; what they wanted to do, view on collaboration and dealing with ecology/mobility/urban themes. Only a few were dropped, the rest was invited to meet and chose their working floor/space.

Rent was paid by all tenants, you didn’t use the anti-squatting framework?

That framework was not feasible. For technical and legal reasons housing was impossible at WTC I. Additionally fixed building charges had to be paid.

So, users were paying rent at preferential rate.

What was the role of the users?

The ambition was to break the monotony, both temporarily and on level of programming.

Break typical day-night rhythm. Self-employed people, small interest groups, creative agencies achieved the diversity of use and created visibility of tenants in the area. They really wanted something to show and visualise the use to draw people in, to activate the space, especially the podium of the towers.

Interesting point is KU Leuven was chosen by networking and work of 51N4E architects at the school, before the call for applications was made. The school fit the profile because of their experimental/laboratory approach. Generally not surprising someone had to pay for the running of the building, but considering the tenants were paying for space and also helping revitalise the neighbourhood, it seems like they have been doing the job, not the NPO or real estate owners.

Furthermore, there is a mention of talks that KU Leuven might remain as an active participant in the area, as having a school in the district was part of the vision for the district, with quite high priority.

Considering the canal zone evolution, will this process still lead to a well-research but still gentrified neighbourhood?

Up4North strives for sincere transformation but cannot guarantee anything. The image of open ground floor to the public with all kinds of smallscale facilities and mix use towers combining living, working and leisure, all with making it affordable for common resident, will lead to a compromise.

Who decides on the compromise? Do they hold the cards?

Developers make concessions, but most importantly the municipalities take the lead by regulating and imposing standard, ex social housing and local retail. The process of Up4North was powerful in bringing actors together and showing their impact, also in terms of economy.

Are there specific spatial recommendations for developers?

Open bases of the towers, so public life can unfold and including small scale, diverse and local entities.

They rather want to include small coffee shop to bring people from the neighbourhood and interact with the more private ecosystem, than a Starbucks or McDonalds.

They never clearly answer how much input they have and how the process influenced the new development. What elements would be carried on from the organisation into the new uses of the areas, if any. Also, interesting how they aspire to make it more local and interact with the neighbourhood, however it still does seem to be gentrified. Did the owners have more power in this compromise and what has the municipality done/regulated?

97

Temporary users have played an enormous part in the process to develop the area as they have provided LabNorth with their research and ideas for how to transform it. Not only that, they had a direct impact on the current situation and the public, attracting people to the site, showing transformation is taking place and for some, helping and bringing in the common voice into the discussion. Some even tried to tackle greater issues and highlight them to LabNorth and the private owners, which was not necessarily received well by the individuals.

LabNorth however, takes pride in how they have been a part of their work by an indirect contribution, by initiating many of these projects and letting the users in to the WTC, bringing them together to do exactly that. A controversial topic is the 2 types of contracts, some being service providers (AWB)

temporary users

others a normal tenant (KUL) which shows the need for profit and inequality between tenants, though still LabNorth retains that most users were there for free or for very cheap rent. Many question the position of Befimmo on this, asking if they as users have not provided anything in return and if Befimmo did not benefit from their presence, which they did but perhaps not visible directly at this point. Big question now, is how these users will collaborate with the other actors after the temporary occupancy.

Until now their role was in the range of doing small projects and providing knowledge, now it seems they have been put aside as the future development of the WTC is in place, in which they did not have a say whatsoever. They had to move out in January 2019, a year before any work on the building was to take place, because of the running costs that outweigh the benefits of the users. LabNorth did not find a place for these organisations at the new WTC, or around the neighbourhood, but has brought them into the LabNorth 2.0 organisation where they become more active members. The struggle of LabNorth is that they do not know yet what business model or governance is needed to sustain them, for example students and a school, in the area in the long term.

the users 98

Fig 78

The district is the result of a top-down approach of public and private actors, without consideration for the users or participatory processes, therefore lacking services for certain users. As the most important stakeholder of the North District, this group should have been involved much more in the collaborations for the development, through participatory projects, open meetings and through the development stages. Their voice however is not very prominent in the research, and the value placed on it, is not visible in the future development.

The public has been involved to some extent in the process, mostly through initiatives of LabNorth and Platform North temporary occupancy as well as public meetings with municipalities.

Students of KU Leuven were working with different users to develop their views of the future in their studios, where they have been analysing the North quarter and its complex history. Students and LabNorth become mediators, but there is

Fig 79

public and locals no one having responsibility for the future development and for the incorporation of their perspective. There are many different types of users of the district: employees and public servants, residents What is (not) a of all ages, students, backpackers, visitors shocking comment, and immigrants. Despite the efforts of is that even the some temporary users, refugees remain politician in the on the side-line and LabNorth and private movie when reflecting actors maintain that it is a political debate on what they have that they are not a part of and cannot do seen, says that the anything. Some initiatives however have refugees are not their integrated this group and the locals, like issue, it is a federal the IABR or urban gardening, though this problem. So WHO is was in a form of participation rather than gonna help to solve collaboration. the problem locally?

“Looking for Smallness in Bigness” This was an interview by Bjorn Houttekier with Marie-Anais Bluteau from Vraiment Vraiment and Sven Lenaerts from Up4North. The interview covered the reasons for transformation of the North Quarter, the urban experimentation approach and its value and the role of KU Leuven. The interview can be found on p.223 in ‘WTC Tower Teachings’.

Where did the idea originate?

Lack of vision from municipalities. Not so much about receiving compensation but force recognition of changing situation on the rental market. Old business of long-term tenants did not work anymore.

Was Up4North born out of fear?

The signal from the market situation was undeniable, but no one was forced to set up the organisation.

It was not set up for short term solutions but for a future oriented vision.

Was the vision and process driven by real estate owners, how much freedom did you have?

The aim was of course to monetise the existing buildings, but there was not much involvement of the initiators of the NPO. They wanted to brand the NQ as experimental, but it was not just a commercial gloss. It was done through experimental initiatives and collaboration on many levels. Not a carte blanche, but considerable amount of freedom, ex. setting up a coalition LabNorth with architects and designers.

What was the selection process of temporary users?

Platform North launched a call for renting offices.

They received about 70 applications and assessed them based on 5 criteria (do not mention which) but their vision for the NQ was important; what they wanted to do, view on collaboration and dealing with ecology/mobility/urban themes. Only a few were dropped, the rest was invited to meet and chose their working floor/space.

Rent was paid by all tenants, you didn’t use the anti-squatting framework?

That framework was not feasible. For technical and legal reasons housing was impossible at WTC I. Additionally fixed building charges had to be paid.

So, users were paying rent at preferential rate.

What was the role of the users?

The ambition was to break the monotony, both temporarily and on level of programming.

Break typical day-night rhythm. Self-employed people, small interest groups, creative agencies achieved the diversity of use and created visibility of tenants in the area. They really wanted something to show and visualise the use to draw people in, to activate the space, especially the podium of the towers.

Interesting point is KU Leuven was chosen by networking and work of 51N4E architects at the school, before the call for applications was made. The school fit the profile because of their experimental/laboratory approach. Generally not surprising someone had to pay for the running of the building, but considering the tenants were paying for space and also helping revitalise the neighbourhood, it seems like they have been doing the job, not the NPO or real estate owners.

Furthermore, there is a mention of talks that KU Leuven might remain as an active participant in the area, as having a school in the district was part of the vision for the district, with quite high priority.

Considering the canal zone evolution, will this process still lead to a well-research but still gentrified neighbourhood?

Up4North strives for sincere transformation but cannot guarantee anything. The image of open ground floor to the public with all kinds of smallscale facilities and mix use towers combining living, working and leisure, all with making it affordable for common resident, will lead to a compromise.

Who decides on the compromise? Do they hold the cards?

Developers make concessions, but most importantly the municipalities take the lead by regulating and imposing standard, ex social housing and local retail. The process of Up4North was powerful in bringing actors together and showing their impact, also in terms of economy.

Are there specific spatial recommendations for developers?

Open bases of the towers, so public life can unfold and including small scale, diverse and local entities.

They rather want to include small coffee shop to bring people from the neighbourhood and interact with the more private ecosystem, than a Starbucks or McDonalds.

They never clearly answer how much input they have and how the process influenced the new development. What elements would be carried on from the organisation into the new uses of the areas, if any. Also, interesting how they aspire to make it more local and interact with the neighbourhood, however it still does seem to be gentrified. Did the owners have more power in this compromise and what has the municipality done/regulated?

99

Interview Summary with Sven Lenaerts Sven Lenaerts is the project manager of Up4North and part of LabNorth. His role is to stimulate collaborations and projects with different actors in the NQ in order to create a new identity and hybrid district.

On Role and Outcomes What was the goal and intention of temporary occupation?

The idea behind temporary occupation was attracting new users and finding a new business model. They wanted to attract new users and businesses to the area, and he points out a few users/functions that are needed and could stay in the district, this includes academic functions and cultural functions.

100

To make that happen the second goal of LabNorth was also finding a balance and a new business model that would allow them to stay in a neighbourhood.

This meaning Lab North encourages private owners and public authorities to rethink their models and rents to be more inclusive. The two key words are coalitions and prototyping, meaning working together and testing what is appropriate and needed in the neighbourhood.

What lessons from temporary occupation were learnt and taken forward to the ZIN project?

At the ZIN project, unfortunately none of the temporary users will reside, but they are working to find a place for them in the neighbourhood.

Now they have all moved to the CCN building. The temporary users became part of LabNorth coalition, in its next phase, LabNorth 2.0. This is where we will see this further collaboration of all the stakeholders.

At the ZIN project the lessons they carry forward, are the openness of the ground floor, sustainability aspect-greenhouse, cultural elements, vertical integration and mix-use, local businesses, sport facilities, mobility, as a few examples.

“...temporary users became part of LabNorth 2.0.”

On Collaboration and Proccess How has public participation played a role in the projects and have they been included in the process?

The temporary users were invited to make participative projects. So, they had about 30 projects. An example was an organisation has closed the streets and created a pool for a day, where in the evening families came with children.

The North Café was the first place initiated by LabNorth to start the transformation. It was a place on ground floor of the WTC, that opened to the public. As part of public participation, and specifically in organising initiatives, they gave free coffee for an idea of what can be done in the neighbourhood. But he agrees there could have been more and more ways to evaluate the interventions.

He says their projects were based on a well analysed studies, including workshops and interviews, but a lot of the initiative came out from LabNorth itself.

He mentions how the furniture can be moved around to see where it is needed, but this still has not taken place.

“...there could have been more ways to evaluate the interventions.”

Is LabNorth collaborating with any social organisations, considering the less advantaged and the migrants?

He mentioned that they do collaborate with social organisations but did not mention which ones apart from a general idea that different associations will need to aid in transformations in different sectors.

But they do not directly work with LabNorth it seems.

He gave an example of energy transformation and associations that would support residents/locals in the changes in this respect. Referring to financial support and other aid.

He mentioned that the temporary users at WTC have made projects to help trans migrants and build ‘ateliers’ but the immigration question is more a political debate he couldn’t do much about at his position and this level. They themselves included them in the process as well through participation in activities like urban gardening and workshops.

How has the relationship of public and private sector changed through this development process and what are the respective roles?

Up4North initiated the transformation and triggered public authorities to act. Lab North was a start of the communication between public and private sector. They are happy to have a seat at the table at the public authorities’ debates, but they are the ones making the rules and getting all other organisations aligned to the same goal.

This is an important point he made a few times, that it is also the public authorities that have influence and power to make guidelines and rules for private developments and the neighbourhood development.

For example, the CCN building is where public authorities have not grasped the moment where they could have triggered change, and instead sold it to a private owner. The important role of public authorities is to insist on certain elements when selling the buildings to achieve this change for diverse district.

“...public authorities have influence and power to make rules for private developments.”

On ZIN and the Future: How does the public interest fit the search for profit of the real estate company?

He pointed out that the role of LabNorth is to defend the public interest, but they also consider profitability for the owners. They need to find the balance between what the public needs and what will bring profit. He said we cannot be naive that what the public wants is the best solution and that companies still need to make profit. Platform North is the closest link to this.

“...cannot be naive that what the public wants is the best solution.”

For the future they try to incorporate all that the neighbourhood needs into the district and through the testing they can have an idea of what are the most appropriate uses are and where. For the ZIN project, they met with inhabitants and shop owners to see which stores are needed and wanted, rather than having another McDonalds, considering public and district needs, rather than simply profit.

However, he pointed out in an example of the digital age that still private owners are important and the big companies as stake holders, such as Proximus, might support them in future developments and transitions in the Northern district, attracting new users and changing the character of the area.

What will be the new identity of the North district? What transitions will the North District experience?

The experimental identity is about the test site and making the district not fall into the monofunctional character. He mentions that the idea is to have max 50% offices and the rest to be variety. The north district has a history of transitions, and now they are taking on 5 different transitions: the mobility transition, energy transition, multifunction transition, ground floor transition and the future ‘talent’. The future talent referring to the lifestyle changes and technological advancements and progress that needs to be adapted to. He mentions that a part of the district might also become the digital identity, as they have big companies and companies which have all the talent. They want to see in the future if young people would want to work there and attract these types of companies.

He mentions in these transitions, the WTC is the first to integrate housing. The next buildings for development are the CCN and the third can be Ferraris, owned by Flemish community, which if it is sold by the region can become another example of a mixed-use building.

101

Interview Summary with Sven Lenaerts Sven Lenaerts is the project manager of Up4North and part of LabNorth. His role is to stimulate collaborations and projects with different actors in the NQ in order to create a new identity and hybrid district.

On Role and Outcomes What was the goal and intention of temporary occupation?

The idea behind temporary occupation was attracting new users and finding a new business model. They wanted to attract new users and businesses to the area, and he points out a few users/functions that are needed and could stay in the district, this includes academic functions and cultural functions.

102

To make that happen the second goal of LabNorth was also finding a balance and a new business model that would allow them to stay in a neighbourhood.

This meaning Lab North encourages private owners and public authorities to rethink their models and rents to be more inclusive. The two key words are coalitions and prototyping, meaning working together and testing what is appropriate and needed in the neighbourhood.

What lessons from temporary occupation were learnt and taken forward to the ZIN project?

At the ZIN project, unfortunately none of the temporary users will reside, but they are working to find a place for them in the neighbourhood.

Now they have all moved to the CCN building. The temporary users became part of LabNorth coalition, in its next phase, LabNorth 2.0. This is where we will see this further collaboration of all the stakeholders.

At the ZIN project the lessons they carry forward, are the openness of the ground floor, sustainability aspect-greenhouse, cultural elements, vertical integration and mix-use, local businesses, sport facilities, mobility, as a few examples.

“...temporary users became part of LabNorth 2.0.”

Although Sven Lenaerts himself seems like a passionate and invested person that cares about both interests, the answers he gave were often the practiced ones, like a speech given to people by the marketing department.

Throwing all the generic information at you from a list.

This is confirmed by the comment of the Bouwmeester in the movie that he should express his own opinion more, rather than fall under pressure from the private owners, that he represents in Up4North.

On Collaboration and Proccess How has public participation played a role in the projects and have they been included in the process?

The temporary users were invited to make participative projects. So, they had about 30 projects. An example was an organisation has closed the streets and created a pool for a day, where in the evening families came with children.

The North Café was the first place initiated by LabNorth to start the transformation. It was a place on ground floor of the WTC, that opened to the public. As part of public participation, and specifically in organising initiatives, they gave free coffee for an idea of what can be done in the neighbourhood. But he agrees there could have been more and more ways to evaluate the interventions.

He says their projects were based on a well analysed studies, including workshops and interviews, but a lot of the initiative came out from LabNorth itself.

He mentions how the furniture can be moved around to see where it is needed, but this still has not taken place. not only have their own interventions not been developed further, but no evaluation has taken place

“...there could have been more ways to evaluate the interventions.”

If they are looking for a place in the neighbourhood,

why are they all again temporarily in the CCN building instead of testing different locations? Where will they move after or will some stay there?

Is LabNorth collaborating with any social organisations, considering the less advantaged and the migrants?

He mentioned that they do collaborate with social organisations but did not mention which ones apart from a general idea that different associations will need to aid in transformations in different sectors.

But they do not directly work with LabNorth it seems.

He gave an example of energy transformation and associations that would support residents/locals in the changes in this respect. Referring to financial support and other aid.

He mentioned that the temporary users at WTC have made projects to help trans migrants and build ‘ateliers’ but the immigration question is more a political debate he couldn’t do much about at his position and this level. They themselves included them in the process as well through participation in activities like urban gardening and workshops.

How has the relationship of public and private sector changed through this development process and what are the respective roles?

Up4North initiated the transformation and triggered public authorities to act. Lab North was a start of the communication between public and private sector. They are happy to have a seat at the table at the public authorities’ debates, but they are the ones making the rules and getting all other organisations aligned to the same goal.

This is an important point he made a few times, that it is also the public authorities that have influence and power to make guidelines and rules for private developments and the neighbourhood development.

For example, the CCN building is where public authorities have not grasped the moment where they could have triggered change, and instead sold it to a private owner. The important role of public authorities is to insist on certain elements when selling the buildings to achieve this change for diverse district.

“...public authorities have influence and power to make rules for private developments.”

On ZIN and the Future: How does the public interest fit the search for profit of the real estate company?

He pointed out that the role of LabNorth is to defend the public interest, but they also consider profitability for the owners. They need to find the balance between what the public needs and what will bring profit. He said we cannot be naive that what the public wants is the best solution and that companies still need to make profit. Platform North is the closest link to this.

“...cannot be naive that what the public wants is the best solution.”

For the future they try to incorporate all that the neighbourhood needs into the district and through the testing they can have an idea of what are the most appropriate uses are and where. For the ZIN project, they met with inhabitants and shop owners to see which stores are needed and wanted, rather than having another McDonalds, considering public and district needs, rather than simply profit.

However, he pointed out in an example of the digital age that still private owners are important and the big companies as stake holders, such as Proximus, might support them in future developments and transitions in the Northern district, attracting new users and changing the character of the area.

What will be the new identity of the North district? What transitions will the North District experience?

The experimental identity is about the test site and making the district not fall into the monofunctional character. He mentions that the idea is to have max 50% offices and the rest to be variety. The north district has a history of transitions, and now they are taking on 5 different transitions: the mobility transition, energy transition, multifunction transition, ground floor transition and the future ‘talent’. The future talent referring to the lifestyle changes and technological advancements and progress that needs to be adapted to. He mentions that a part of the district might also become the digital identity, as they have big companies and companies which have all the talent. They want to see in the future if young people would want to work there and attract these types of companies.

He mentions in these transitions, the WTC is the first to integrate housing. The next buildings for development are the CCN and the third can be Ferraris, owned by Flemish community, which if it is sold by the region can become another example of a mixed-use building.

103

Collaborations of LabNorth on the development of the NQ

AG Real Estate Allianz Benelux AXA Belgium Banimmo Befimmo

real estate owners

Belfius Insurance

Real estate stakeholders (capital)

Immobel Triuva Belgium Engie Jaspers Eyers

Up4North

building contractor/architect

NPO

L’AUC 51N4E irisphere greenloop port.brussels 104

greentech.brussels atrium.brussels (Regional Commerce Agency) lateral thinking factory Communaute portuaire bruxelloise

architecture agency

Architecture Workroom Brussels (AWB)

think-and-do tank co-curator of IABR 2018-2020

Lab North coalition

VraimentVraiment design agency

proprete.brussels EcoRes Beci (brussels enterprises commerce and industry La Ferme Nos Pilifs

users of the NQ

Platform North temporary occupancy project

students employees public servants backpackers visitors students

SOCIAL INPUT

artist organisations IABR Samenlivingsopbouw Nansen Society Building Brussels Service Volontaire International (SVI)

GOVERNMENTAL/ADMINISTRATIVE INPUT

OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AND PUBLIC ACTORS IN NQ HUB.brussels SNCB/NMBS Renovas Kenniscentrum Vlaamse Steden Cabinet Min. Pres.

Vlaamse Gemeenschapscommisie (VGC)

citydev.brussels

brussels.mobilite

OTHER SOCIAL ACTORS IN NQ

Bruxelles Environnement. brussels

BmA.brussels municipality of St. Josse Bouwmeester maitre architecte

Perspective.brussels Territorial Strategy Department Territorial Knowledge Department

municipality of Brussels

sau-msi.brussels public urban operator

public authorities Brussels region 3 municipalities

municipality of Schearbeek

Pole Nord Ferme Maximillelien BRAVO Toestand KANAL & Kaaitheater Ass. Foyer lakenoise FABLAB (cityfab 1) Comites de quartier Comité de district Inter-Environnement Bruxelles BRAL ARAU Bruxelles Formation VDAB Actiriss IBEFE Trace Brussel De Harmonie BXL Refugee Woningen 123105 Art Basics for Children JES Atelier Groot Eiland City Mine(d) Lancelot FéBUL Soleil du Nord Endeavours

residents of NQ

residents of all ages immigrants strong collaboration link weak collaboration link members other collaborations

Collaborations of LabNorth on the development of the NQ

AG Real Estate Allianz Benelux AXA Belgium Banimmo Befimmo

real estate owners

Belfius Insurance

Real estate stakeholders (capital)

Immobel Triuva Belgium Engie Jaspers Eyers

Up4North

building contractor/architect

NPO

L’AUC 51N4E irisphere greenloop port.brussels 106

greentech.brussels atrium.brussels (Regional Commerce Agency) lateral thinking factory Communaute portuaire bruxelloise

architecture agency

Architecture Workroom Brussels (AWB)

think-and-do tank co-curator of IABR 2018-2020

Lab North coalition

VraimentVraiment design agency

proprete.brussels EcoRes Beci (brussels enterprises commerce and industry La Ferme Nos Pilifs

users of the NQ

Platform North temporary occupancy project

students employees public servants backpackers visitors students

SOCIAL INPUT

artist organisations IABR Samenlivingsopbouw Nansen Society Building Brussels Service Volontaire International (SVI)

GOVERNMENTAL/ADMINISTRATIVE INPUT

OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AND PUBLIC ACTORS IN NQ HUB.brussels SNCB/NMBS Renovas Kenniscentrum Vlaamse Steden Cabinet Min. Pres.

Vlaamse Gemeenschapscommisie (VGC)

citydev.brussels

brussels.mobilite

OTHER SOCIAL ACTORS IN NQ

Bruxelles Environnement. brussels

BmA.brussels municipality of St. Josse Bouwmeester maitre architecte

Perspective.brussels Territorial Strategy Department Territorial Knowledge Department

municipality of Brussels

sau-msi.brussels public urban operator

public authorities Brussels region 3 municipalities

residents of NQ

municipality of Schearbeek

Pole Nord Ferme Maximillelien BRAVO Toestand KANAL & Kaaitheater Ass. Foyer lakenoise FABLAB (cityfab 1) Comites de quartier ComitĂŠ de district Inter-Environnement Bruxelles BRAL ARAU Bruxelles Formation VDAB Actiriss IBEFE Trace Brussel De Harmonie BXL Refugee Woningen 123107 Art Basics for Children JES Atelier Groot Eiland City Mine(d) Lancelot FĂŠBUL Soleil du Nord Endeavours

On this graphic we can see the collaborations of LabNorth during the process and planning for the future. It is based on research and other attempts at mapping networks in the North Quarter. The links are drawn from the relationships that can be found in the conducted research, therefore there might be some collaborations that could be happening which are just not visible to the public.

residents of all ages immigrants strong collaboration link weak collaboration link members other collaborations

Fig 80

108

Change and transformation, what’s the future?

Up4North has organised a session for information about other vacant lots in the North District, as potential places where temporary users could reside. Those being the Plinth of the WTC 3 & 4, NMBS museum, the CCN building, Former cycle service station besides the train station and more.

Many of the architects moved to the empty office space at the train station, however 51N4E and AWB have located themselves in the new empty office building on Guimardstraat before it was announced in the market.

KU Leuven moved to KANAL Pompidou and has organised a temporary ‘Interfaculty Lab’ in the former Citroen building in collaboration with UCL and ULB that also moved there.

As for other users, they became part of LabNorth and now found their place, again temporarily, at the CCN building.

This is a big question from temporary users of the WTC. Hoping for ‘permanent temporariness’ after the success and contributions to the North Quarter, they were faced with the fact that they need to find somewhere else to go as there was no place for them at the ZIN. LabNorth lost hope of that option, and will try to find a place for them in the area.

Will temporary users be displaced again or will they find a place at the NQ?

What is happening around North District

Fig 81

Fig 82

The plan is to optimise the resources and diversity of the current areas, so they contribute to the local economy circularity, equality and solidarity. The conceptual map shows actors/functions/characters relationships in the area and how theycan work together.

109

Fig 83

One of the main visions for the development is creating connections between the canal, business area and the other side of the station. The idea is to reduce the barrier of the tracks by making tunnels and adjust the mobility flows.

Fig 84

Fig 80

110

Change and transformation, what’s the future?

Up4North has organised a session for information about other vacant lots in the North District, as potential places where temporary users could reside. Those being the Plinth of the WTC 3 & 4, NMBS museum, the CCN building, Former cycle service station besides the train station and more.

Many of the architects moved to the empty office space at the train station, however 51N4E and AWB have located themselves in the new empty office building on Guimardstraat before it was announced in the market.

KU Leuven moved to KANAL Pompidou and has organised a temporary ‘Interfaculty Lab’ in the former Citroen building in collaboration with UCL and ULB that also moved there.

As for other users, they became part of LabNorth and now found their place, again temporarily, at the CCN building.

This is a big question from temporary users of the WTC. Hoping for ‘permanent temporariness’ after the success and contributions to the North Quarter, they were faced with the fact that they need to find somewhere else to go as there was no place for them at the ZIN. LabNorth lost hope of that option, and will try to find a place for them in the area.

Will temporary users be displaced again or will they find a place at the NQ?

What is happening around North District

Fig 81

The plan is to optimise the resources and diversity of the current areas, so they contribute to the local economy circularity, equality and solidarity. The conceptual map shows actors/functions/characters relationships in the area and how theycan work together.

Fig 82

The analysis and mapping of the character and functions of the area is good for understanding where there needs to be improvement, however it is still quite limited to the perimeter. If the area is to become part of the city, a greater context need to be considered.

How will the connections be done? Will this be enough to merge the neighbourhoods?

What will be the real impact on both areas?

111

Fig 83

One of the main visions for the development is creating connections between the canal, business area and the other side of the station. The idea is to reduce the barrier of the tracks by making tunnels and adjust the mobility flows.

Fig 84

ZIN ZIN is a new development for the WTC 1 kickstarting the transformation of the North District. It has been designed in collaboration with 51N4E & L’AUC and the completion date is expected to be 2023.

Fig 85 ZIN greenhouse interior

‘The ZIN project is the first hybrid architecture that will add a new dimension to the business district of the Northern Quarter! The mixed-use complex of residential and offices will provide also leisure, sport, hospitality and retail facilities.

One of the major occupants will be the Flemish Government, taking up 70.000 m² of the office space and moving in by 2023. The seamless integration of the project into its surrounding creates a feeling of openness, enhanced by a large public orangery.

112

ZIN will bring life into this part of the city and will stimulate interaction seven days a week. Thanks to the use of latest technologies, almost zeroenergy performance will be achieved. Finally, by aiming for the highest standards in sustainability and circularity, “Design for change” has set adaptability over time as one of the main goals – it will provide flexibility in use and functions while offering a valuable and open perspective towards future.’

-

Fig 87 ZIN greenhouse exterior

70 000 m² offices 240 hotel rooms 127 apartments

Fig 86 ZIN exterior

CCN Building

Fig 88 Massing diagram for new CCN building

The CCN building at the North Station is yet another project of the private owners in the area. In 2017 the CCN building has been put up for sale by the Brussels government. Since 2018, the construction promoter Ghelamco, has been the prospective buyer when they signed the purchase option, meaning they would buy the building, but need time and a go forth for a loan to pay for it.However, AXA had the right to buy the building, a pre-sale right, so it has been sold last April to a partnership between AG real estate, Atenor and AXA IM-Real Assets to be redeveloped as a new multifunctional space. The price of the sale is unknown.

The new plan is to demolish the top floors to make well matched housing, offices and commercial spaces. The partners explain that the site has great potential and can become a symbol of new city life, a destination itself, as it has great connectivity to public transport and is in the heart of a district.

(20) The new project aims to be both a transit and a liveable area, again adding life for the benefit of the public area(17), something that has been said many times before. Stephan Sonneville, the CEO of Atenor, says the underground 3 floors with the metro and bus stops will remain and the project will make the public transport stronger, through enhancing the relationship between the train, tram and metro lines. The press release says this is an opportunity as the area has undergone big transformations, however this can hardly be seen right now and there is no prediction of the results in 2021.

There is a competition for the overall vision, where nine interdisciplinary teams are participating with some international companies. The winner will be announced in summer 2020. The alliance of ARCHITECTEASSOC+, MULTIPLE and TVK has been outstanding in the eyes of public authorities and the partners, providing highest quality and best connectivity of transport options present.(17) Following a building permit, the partnership plans to start construction in 2021.

In the meantime, the previous users, officials of the region, departments for housing, urban planning and mobility, still remain in the building, but will move to the Silver Tower in 2021. Along with the previous occupants, there are 20 organisations on the 4th floor, among which are many urban design and architectural offices, such as 51N4E, occupying the building temporarily. As stated by an employee of 51N4E, they want to show that it is not always necessary to demolish the buildings completely, as typical Brusselisation, but it is can be used with only slight refurbishment. Some of the temporary users have previously been at the WTC towers but had to move when the works started. Here they can stay at least until December 2021, implying that this time frame can be prolonged for a variety of reasons.

Along with this announcement and the proposed redevelopment, there can be a further discussion surrounding the topic of the new bus terminal of De Lijn which is currently under the building.

Beforehand, the Flemish government has submitted for a building application, however this was put on hold due to the uncertainty of the future of the building. Another uncertain aspect is the international bus station, currently discussed to be at the Erasmus Metro station car park. However, many travel companies insist that the current stops should remain at the North station.

It is said that nothing will be decided until it is known at the end of the competition how the new building will look like. So far the proposal is consistent with the GBP, Regional Zoning Plan, ed. which suggests that the area can ‘offer hotels and other services in the public interest in addition to office and living space’. Though the Prime Minister is fine with the proposal, he does regret that the transformation of the building is done by private owners not the public sector, a common aspect of Brusselisation and future developments of real estate.

113

ZIN ZIN is a new development for the WTC 1 kickstarting the transformation of the North District. It has been designed in collaboration with 51N4E & L’AUC and the completion date is expected to be 2023.

Fig 85 ZIN greenhouse interior

‘The ZIN project is the first hybrid architecture that will add a new dimension to the business district of the Northern Quarter! The mixed-use complex of residential and offices will provide also leisure, sport, hospitality and retail facilities.

One of the major occupants will be the Flemish Government, taking up 70.000 m² of the office space and moving in by 2023. The seamless integration of the project into its surrounding creates a feeling of openness, enhanced by a large public orangery.

114

ZIN will bring life into this part of the city and will stimulate interaction seven days a week. Thanks to the use of latest technologies, almost zeroenergy performance will be achieved. Finally, by aiming for the highest standards in sustainability and circularity, “Design for change” has set adaptability over time as one of the main goals – it will provide flexibility in use and functions while offering a valuable and open perspective towards future.’

This is still a sales’ pitch, promising all these elements and giving a nice vision, however the elements themselves will probably not be as open as said, and they will not create that much activity without public access and activities.

These most socially relatable concepts for building a community and diversity are currently only words not confirmed yet.

Fig 87 ZIN greenhouse exterior

70 000 m² offices 240 hotel rooms 127 apartments

Fig 86 ZIN exterior

CCN Building

Perhaps this is an even bigger potential and real heart of the NQ? This project would aditionally incorporate mobility concepts, and directly have to integrate solutions for the city of comings and goings.

Fig 88 Massing diagram for new CCN building

The CCN building at the North Station is yet another project of the private owners in the area. In 2017 the CCN building has been put up for sale by the Brussels government. Since 2018, the construction promoter Ghelamco, has been the prospective buyer when they signed the purchase option, meaning they would buy the building, but need time and a go forth for a loan to pay for it.However, AXA had the right to buy the building, a pre-sale right, so it has been sold last April to a partnership between AG real estate, Atenor and AXA IM-Real Assets to be redeveloped as a new multifunctional space. The price of the sale is unknown.

The new plan is to demolish the top floors to make well matched housing, offices and commercial spaces. The partners explain that the site has great potential and can become a symbol of new city life, a destination itself, as it has great connectivity to public transport and is in the heart of a district.

(20) The new project aims to be both a transit and a liveable area, again adding life for the benefit of the public area(17), something that has been said many times before. Stephan Sonneville, the CEO of Atenor, says the underground 3 floors with the metro and bus stops will remain and the project will make the public transport stronger, through enhancing the relationship between the train, tram and metro lines. The press release says this is an opportunity as the area has undergone big transformations, however this can hardly be seen right now and there is no prediction of the results in 2021.

There is a competition for the overall vision, where nine interdisciplinary teams are participating with some international companies. The winner will be announced in summer 2020. The alliance of ARCHITECTEASSOC+, MULTIPLE and TVK has been outstanding in the eyes of public authorities and the partners, providing highest quality and best connectivity of transport options present.(17) Following a building permit, the partnership plans to start construction in 2021.

So the temporary users again, fill in a time frame gap, but what In the meantime, the previous users, officials of the impact will they have on this region, departments for housing, urban planning building? It seems like nothing was and mobility, still remain in the building, but will learnt from WTC yet in terms of move to the Silver Tower in 2021. Along with the temporary use impact. previous occupants, there are 20 organisations on the 4th floor, among which are many urban design and architectural offices, such as 51N4E, occupying the building temporarily. As stated by an employee of 51N4E, they want to show that it is not always necessary to demolish the buildings completely, as typical Brusselisation, but it is can be used with only 115 slight refurbishment. Some of the temporary users have previously been at the WTC towers but had to move when the works started. Here they can stay at least until December 2021, implying that this time frame can be prolonged for a variety of reasons.

Along with this announcement and the proposed redevelopment, there can be a further discussion surrounding the topic of the new bus terminal of De Lijn which is currently under the building.

Beforehand, the Flemish government has submitted for a building application, however this was put on hold due to the uncertainty of the future of the building. Another uncertain aspect is the international bus station, currently discussed to be at the Erasmus Metro station car park. However, many travel companies insist that the current stops should remain at the North station.

With international teams participating, there is a chance that It is said that nothing will be decided until it is known this project will have a much more at the end of the competition how the new building innovative solution, however there is will look like. So far the proposal is consistent with also a chance that it will be again a the GBP, Regional Zoning Plan, ed. which suggests generic concept applied everywhere that the area can ‘offer hotels and other services in as is with private owners. the public interest in addition to office and living space’. Though the Prime Minister is fine with the proposal, he does regret that the transformation of the building is done by private owners not the public sector, a common aspect of Brusselisation and future developments of real estate.

Why have the temporary users been displaced?

How can temporary users still play an active role in future development of NQ? Can we find a place for temporary users in the neighbourhood?

What if all users stay at the WTC? Can the WTC make profit and support social actions?

116

Can there be a balance between public and private functions?

Could temporary users be more involved in the design process?

How can ZIN become more inclusive?

Can the impact of temporary use become more permanent?

Will temporary use become the new identity of the district?

GUIDANCE FOR FUTURE from lessons learnt of temporary users at NQ and Brussels

117

collaboration participatory process public vs private balance activating the district summary and evaluation form

Collaborations Strengthen collaboration between the different users, and private and public organisations

An improvement of the process and future developments lies in improved collaborations, especially between the planning bodies and the users of the area in a cocreation process. As well the inclusion and collaborations of private and public organisations, including social organisations representing the general and disadvantaged public.

1

Support of Temporary Users by Public Authorities Why?

This will allow temporary use to reach its full potential and support from public authorities can ensure that the temporary use contributes to the needs of the public and the neighbourhood. Improving collaborations with planning bodies will assure future needs of the area by learning from the activities of temporary use and including them in future development proposals.

How?

This can be done by improved participation and contribution to the activities of the temporary users, as is done by Toestand at Allee du Kaai. Investigation of the different activities and feedback from temporary users can be observed and gathered to inform the future plans before the decisions are made, therefore more directly responding to the neighbourhood needs.

2

Improved collaboration of private players and public authorities Why?

This collaboration has shown signs of improvement, however further collaborations and discussions can result in better solutions that will meet both needs and form a coherent proposal for the district.

Both parties can greatly influence the development of the area and they cannot function without each other.

118

How?

A transparent process and communication are key to a clear vision and progress in the same direction.

Both parties must respect each other and make clear the goals and requirements to find common ground.

It is important that this starts early and is developed in collaboration through meetings, workshops, presentations, and even external parties’ contributions.

3

Consideration of migrants in current and future planning Why?

Migrants should not be ignored nor displaced. They should be considered in design for the future district as they are currently the main users creating life in the district and this will not change. Migrants should play an equal part in creation of the neighbourhood as it should also serve their needs. By providing and supporting migrants, public and private bodies will also benefit from improved situation and relationship.

How?

Migrants should not be treated as a problem, but as an equal user of the area. Private actors and public authorities should start to locally adjust and provide solutions to distribute migrants through the quarter and integrate them into the community. Temporary uses can be a way to provide these possibilities temporarily, as are organisation like WONINGEN123 or Samenlivingsopbouw, until more permanent solutions are found.

4

Inclusion of social organisations in the planning process Why?

Social organisations represent the needs of different and marginalised users, therefore are the best source of information and initiatives that prioritise their needs. They can contribute to the discussions of the planning bodies for an inclusive district and highlight the current challenges and needs.

How?

They should become an integral part of the research, design, and evaluation phases to defend the public interest and support these groups of people in the transformation. Apart from defending the people’s interests, they can contribute to the planning process by making initiatives and improving communication between the planning bodies and the people.

Designers should take into account the users of the future space, considering needs of all people and adaptability for the future. Following trends and generic concepts will not fix site specific challenges.

exsisting link strengthened link new link

designers

temporary users

administrative bodies

LabNorth locals

119

real estate owners

There needs to be better understanding between the private and public bodies, and balance between profit and social needs. As these developers rule the quarter, they are the ones who can also change and give space to other functions. With better communication and showing benefits of alternatives this could lead to a change of the NQ.

migrants

other users social organisations

These do not usually have a direct link to planning process but aid with the raising challenges. They can also play an important role to highlight the challenges faced by the locals and users, and with support of the government, they can help in the transition process and future, much better if they are a part of the transition planning.

Migrants have not been included in the process, but they are in fact the most impactful user of the area. Without taking them into account and their relationship to the rest of the society, there will never be coherence and an integrated community. We need to create proposals that incorporate migrants’ needs and if only their voice was heard and they worked with others, maybe a solution that fits all would be invented without forcing anything on anyone.

Participatory Process Improved participation through all stages of design process and temporary use

Because the collaborations and process is not very clear from the available sources, and the future proposal does not show signs of inclusive design and implementation of the outcomes from temporary users, a participatory process should become more prominent in early stages of such transformations.

1

Continuous information and analysis phase including all actors Why?

The transformation should stem from open conversation and thorough analysis of the neighbourhood.

Continuous analysis will ensure the most appropriate solutions for the current and raising challenges of all actors. Good communication to the public is key for acceptance of new projects by the public and their implementation. It will give everyone an equal chance to participate and reach a common goal.

How?

The information can come from different actors however the public authorities should communicate officially to the public and other information sessions should involve representatives of all stakeholders.

Initial planning and analysis can be done through workshops, questionnaires, and activities to give an equal opportunity to all concerned to participate and reach a common goal.

2

Ensure a co-creative process between Locals and Designers Why?

A co-creative process can strengthen the relationships between these actors and allow the locals to be part of the transformation, seeing their views be considered and implemented in the process and then the outcome. This will create a feeling of belonging and sense of place in the area making it more humane and for the public.

120

How?

3

This can be achieved through different activities of temporary users done with the public rather than for the public, following the example of ParkFarm. The activities will emphasize the contribution of locals to making the area. A key element is transparency of actions by the temporary users and designers, showing their process in workshops, exhibitions, open debates and encouraging the public to participate from early stages of design.

Temporary users should be an integral part of the design process Why?

Temporary users can give insight to what the new development can become and functions it should include, as they can have a more direct relationship with the public and better know their specific needs.

Temporary use can serve as a link between the designers and the public, and be more than just a source of information, but also a representative of the public opinion.

How?

The temporary users carry out important research through their initiatives, therefore a reflection on the process and outcome is necessary to inform the design stage. The initiatives taking place should be reflected upon through observations, mapping, surveys, or workshops, followed by or in collaboration with planning bodies.

4

Systematic reflection and feedback on the process to inform decisions Why?

This aspect is often missed, however can greatly help in future planning, especially when lessons can be drawn from a small part of a larger development. It will also be an important step throughout the process to adapt and respond to the comments of different actors to ensure the direction of the project meets all needs fairly. At the end it can give an overview of which actions have achieved best results.

How?

For most informative feedback, this part of the process should be done by a participatory process through gathering public opinion, surveys, and workshops, but it can also be done by the organisations and planning bodies themselves. The reflection and feedback can take place during and after the initiatives and decisions, as at all stages it is important to reflect on the actions to find if the process can be improved.

takes longer than just initial impressions and requires thorough analysis and all perspectives

so many outcomes could have influenced the design and transition, but it was never used properly through the design process

an independent process that started before this collaboration timeline and never really joined

collaborations only start after everything else is basically decided

long term cooperation with perspective. brussels

design phase press conference

competition understand the neighborhood coallition

inventory of current projects benchmark

participative workshops

temporary ocupancy

co-organization seminar LabNorth & Perspective

contnuous actions:

contact stakeholders masterclasses with universitiy

analysis and exploration

Explorative 1. meetings and debates 2. mapping 3. surveys 4. workshops 5. activities and events

cafe north

121

earlier and longer

constant collaborative process

original timeline

implementation and participation implementation 1. workshops 2. public contribution 3. progress sessions 4. feedback sessions

platform north

competition

Informative 1. public meetings 2. questionnaires 3. activities and events 4. initial collaborations with actors

initiation and information

co-creative 1. workshops 2. informative sessions 3. feedback sessions 4. platforms 5. meeting architects 6. new collaborations 7. involvement of all actors

design and co-creation

design and participation timeline

Public - Private Balance New balance of functions in the transformed buildings Based on the research of temporary use and how it has been included in the NQ development, it is clear that the balance between private and public priorities, meaning profit and social benefits is still a big debate. To avoid a monofunctional building, it is important to incorporate other functions and housing that would create a flow of people through the day and make the buildings an active part of city life.

1

Provide a wide range of functions and activities in the building Why?

Providing a variety of functions, a mixed-use building, will create life and stimulate use of the building at different times of day and with different purpose. This will bring new and different users to the building and create life in and around it, not just a boring monofunctional building. Multifunctional spaces will form an opportunity for different uses to take place there, giving the building more attraction.

How?

This can be achieved by providing at least a 50:50 ratio of offices to other functions. These other functions should include housing, public services, and social functions. Temporary users should be incorporated to create a variety of businesses and organisations and create initiatives and events that will attract the public.

2

Organise public and private functions according to their needs and relationship to the users Why?

By rethinking the distribution of different functions in the building, it can achieve a more active atmosphere, new collaborations as well the most benefits for all stakeholders. This way all the functions in the building will have the best conditions for their purpose. The needs of the stakeholders can be met, while their objectives will support each other’s needs.

122

How?

3

With improved collaboration and understanding of the needs of private developers and the public needs, there can be a balance in functions. Temporary users and social functions should be integrated into the lower floors, to create easy public access and relationship with the outside public space. Private functions should be placed in more distant areas with most profitable spaces, to generate profit for the owners.

Support functions and housing for greater needs of the area Why?

The building must incorporate and solve greater challenges to transform the area. Incorporating housing and offering the necessary services and functions goes hand in hand to bring and support life in the area but also the building. It will also create a more attractive and inclusive place to be in and find activities for different users.

How?

An analysis of the housing needs should be done to find the appropriate mix of housing typologies that is in demand for the area. The housing should be provided for different groups of people to support a mix of users present in the neighbourhood. The facilities should reflect the outcomes of temporary use period and public needs which should be learned through a participatory process.

4

Expand the building function into public space and the outside Why?

Expanding and opening the building to the outside will create a welcoming character and a more accessible building to different users. It will help to diminish the hard division of interior and exterior and private and public. By expanding the functions to the outside, it helps to define the outdoor space, but also create active facades making it inviting for the public.

How?

This can be done placing public functions at the ground floor, which include not only public services but also temporary users and activities which take place both inside and outside, such as Marcel Bike Cafe.

This should also apply to rooftops and podiums which offer an opportunity to change the environment for the occupants, but also attract the public to the building by distributing public functions and activity throughout which can be seen from the street.

non-inclusive

balance

idealistic

no temporary users and public functions

some temporary users and public functions

all temporary users and public functions

not inclusive and not implementing the efforts and outcomes of the temporary occupancy which add to the attractiveness and liveliness of the building and neighbourhood

WTC is the first ‘transformation centre’ so it should contain some temporary users as a good example of a process, implementation and mix use in the building

This would take away at least 9 floors of profitable office space, which would not be a realistic option for the owners

BUT

the number of users and their impact on the new development will have to balance/compromise with the profit the owners want to make

123

less public initiatives more independent organisations radio stations covering what is going on in the NQ

public participation initiatives social organisations art and cultural societies for neighbourhood improvement

outdoor initiatives events and activities urban gardening ex. illegal brewery

Floor division compromise: Office and Private Use:

Temporary Use and Public Functions:

- higher floors as they are more quiet

- ground floor

- top floors with nice views

- first 5 floors have most interaction with the street

- combined sets of floors to accommodate large companies

- roof top above podium /green house

Most attractive and profitable space is left for tenure for offices.

Most accessible spaces and ones with most direct relationship to the outside will be used for temporary users and public activities.

Diversity in the District Temporary Use and variety of functions distributed throughout the district

Transforming one building will not solve the issues of the district. To make it lively and diverse, temporary uses should be spread around the district taking advantage of unused public spaces as well as vacant buildings. This will activate the whole area and find the best locations for certain functions and more permanent activities. A balance where both private and public functions can benefit and co-exist would help the district prosper and grow as an inclusive and diverse neighbourhood.

1

Provide activities and temporary uses that integrate all users Why?

Common activities for all users will encourage community integration and allow different types of users to come together and interact. This can be significant to the migrant integration in the community but also locals, and temporary users of the district, users that normally could miss each other through the day. It will prevent segregation and splitting functions in the district, making all areas accessible and attractive to all.

How?

Activities can be made by temporary users and social initiatives, even public authorities to support community building. These activities can take form of participatory processes, like urban gardening or simply events, which are attended and attractive to all. More activities should place focus on integrating migrants to support their integration.

2

Provide functions and activities for different types of users Why?

A variety of functions that support different users is necessary to attract them to the area and form a sense of belonging for this group. The common users, the locals, are the ones that make the area lively and use the space throughout the day, therefore it is important to provide facilities and services they can use and therefore remain in the area. Provided variety will attract a mix of people therefore making the district inclusive and welcoming for all.

124

How?

To provide the appropriate functions, there needs to be a good analysis of the needs and wants of the locals and future users. This can be done through workshops, surveys and open discussions and other participation methods, to find what these users really needs and want in the area.

3

Activate public space and the streets Why?

Activating public space and getting people to the street is what makes the district lively and active.

It will increase public interactions and offer a common ground for everyone, making activities more approachable. The area will become more inviting and attractive and help to retain people outside through the day. Transforming streets to public space will increase connectivity and coherence between different areas.

How?

A big transformation will rely on the transition to slow mobility and limiting car use to prioritise pedestrians and public activity. Temporary users and public functions should have increased activities and functions outside for all public giving potential for participative projects. Inspiration can be taken from temporary initiatives like ‘Pool is cool’.

4

Mix and match functions and activities through the district Why?

The mixed distribution of functions will ensure integration of users, lively areas, and mixed character.

It will create variety of people in areas and stimulate flows through the district, not division and separation of the community or places overtaken by one group. It will also create more security as there will be different people and activities at different times.

How?

To distribute the functions through the district, they should be placed to meet the current potentials of the area and the needs of the users. This should also be explored through temporary use and reflected upon the placement of new functions within the neighbourhood. Temporary uses and functions should be placed according to their activities and needs in the neighbourhood, such as environmental initiatives taking place near the park.

Temporary Use in buildings:

Temporary Use in public space:

- buildings having 50% offices, 50% other functions

- activating public space with more attractions

- create a more active use of buildings with activity at different times of day and for different people - distributed through-out, at locations closest to their action area or needed projects - creating a relationship of building to public space, clearing the division between public and private

- more approachable to public and potential for fully participative projects - visible activity and their impact on the NQ - prioritising people over cars by activities on streets and squares - create life and distribute people and activity through the district - it can define a space with a certain identity, giving them a purpose and sense of place - retain people outside through the day to make a lively area

diverse activities and services, practical interventions improved quality attractive space migrant related initiatives, social integration, ecological interventions, participative and co-creative processes

greenhouse for open ground floors public functions on groundfloor opening to all directions bigger events and projects nature related projects

diversity in functions 125 temporary users fit the character of the building and welcome to the NQ mobility related initiatives

Boul

evar

d Ro

i Alb

ert II

short term temporary users as experimentation mix of functions with open connection to outdoor space

Checklist for Temporary Use and Transformation

!

Strengthen collaborations of different users and private and public organisations Have temporary users been supported and collaborating with Public Authorities?

Has there been clear communication between different actors?

Has there been a transparent process between private players and public authorities?

Are we considering migrants in current and future planning?

Are we treating migrants as an equal user of the area?

Have social organisations been included in the planning process?

126

!

Improved participation through all stages of design process and temporary use Are we providing continuous flow of information to all the actors?

Have public authorities been communicating official matters to the public?

Are all stakeholders present at informative meetings?

Has the analysis phase been extended and continuously reflected upon with all the actors?

Did we ensure a co-creative process between Locals, Designers and Temporary Users?

Have we included public participation in the early design stages?

Have temporary users been part of the design process and provided insight to the design?

Have we reflected on the process after each major step?

Have we collected feedback from other actors through and at the end of the process?

!

New balance of functions in the transformed buildings Is there at least a 50:50 ratio of offices to other functions?

Are there functions that cover uses at different times of day?

Is there multifunctional space and space for temporary users to be incorporated?

Are temporary users and social functions easily accessible and with relation to public space?

Are offices and private functions located at most profitable spaces?

Is there an appropriate mix of housing typologies?

Are functions, facilities and services provided to support life of residents and locals?

Expand the building function into public space and the outside Is the ground floor open and with public functions offering activity expanding to public space?

Are there activities and public functions on the rooftops and podiums?

!

Temporary Use and variety of functions distributed throughout the district Are there activities and temporary uses provided that integrate all users?

Are there activities that encourage migrants’ participation with other users?

Do the functions in the district cover the needs of all the different users?

Did we prioritise pedestrian movement and less cars on the street?

Are there activities and temporary uses happening on the streets and public spaces?

Is there a mixed distribution of functions and activities through the district?

127

Bibliography ADD, 2020. Twintigtal bedrijven palmt CCN-gebouw tijdelijk in. BRUZZ, [online] 23 January. Available at: <www.bruzz.be/stedenbouw/ twintigtal-bedrijven-palmt-ccn-gebouw-tijdelijk-2020-01-23> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

AG Real Estate and Atenor, 2019. A MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM OF ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS APPOINTED FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CENTRE DE COMMUNICATION NORD (CCN) IN BRUSSELS. [press release] 14 November 2019. Available at: <www.atenor.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/2019-CCN-Selection-of-architects-and-planners.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020] Befimmo, n.d. ZIN. [online] Available at: <www.befimmo.be/en/portfolio/zin#zone-spec> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Binst, A. and Difficile, L., 2018. JOUW VRAAG. Kan je de WTC I-toren bezoeken? Zijn er ook kantoren of woont er iemand?. BRUZZ, [online] 12 April. Available at: <www.bruzz.be/videoreeks/donderdag-12-april-2018/video-jouw-vraag-kan-je-de-wtc-i-toren-bezoeken-zijn-er-ook> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Boie, G. et al., 2019. WTC Tower Teachings. Brussels: KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture. bouwmeestermaîtrearchitecte, n.d. About. [online] Available at: <bma.brussels/fr/accueil/approche/> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Bradshaw, L., 2018. Molenbeek council offers new home for Recyclart. The Bulletin, [online] 21 February. Available at: <www.thebulletin.be/ molenbeek-council-offers-new-home-recyclart> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Communa, n.d. Missions. [online] Available at: <www.communa.be/missions/> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Culture Trip, n.d. Recyclart: The Alternative Art Hub Of Brussels. [online] Available at: <theculturetrip.com/europe/belgium/articles/ recyclart-the-alternative-art-hub-of-brussels/> [Accessed 26 May 2020]. de Smet, A., 2013. The role of temporary use in urban (re)development: examples from Brussels. Brussels Studies, [online] 72. Available at: <journals.openedition.org/brussels/1196?lang=en> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Decamps, B. 2017. Studio Citygate. [press release] 13 June 2017. Available at: <citydevbrussels.prezly.com/communique-de-presse-sudiocitygate#> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

128

D’hoore, A., 2018. The housing crisis paradox: How the Citizens of Brussels are Reclaiming Unused Space. The Brussels Times, [online] 29 November. Available at: <www.brusselstimes.com/opinion/52202/the-housing-crisis-paradox-how-the-citizens-of-brussels-are-reclaimingunused-space/> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

GR, 2019. Nieuwe eigenaars willen CCN-gebouw aan Noordstation slopen. BRUZZ, [online] 5 October. Available at: <www.bruzz.be/groeneruimte/nieuwe-eigenaars-willen-ccn-gebouw-aan-noordstation-slopen-2019-10-05 > [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Harrup, T., 2019. CCN renewal on the road. [online] Available at: <www.pro-realestate.be/news-view.asp?L=uk&ccc=0&rrr=0&channel=NEWS&rubr=&V=title&ID=77856&TXT=CCN+renewal+on+the+road> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Hendrickx, K, 2020. Monopoly aan het Zuidstation: ‘Geld is opnieuw de motor’. BRUZZ, [online] 29 January. Available at: <www.bruzz.be/ stedenbouw/monopoly-aan-het-zuidstation-geld-opnieuw-de-motor-2020-01-29> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Hendrickx, K, 2020. NMBS wil paleizen onder de sporen nu toch gebruiken. BRUZZ, [online] 3 February. Available at: <www.bruzz.be/ stedenbouw/nmbs-wil-paleizen-onder-de-sporen-nu-toch-gebruiken-2020-02-03> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

IABR, n.d. The Missing Link: Brussel. [online] Available at: <iabr.nl/en/editie/yah2018> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

LabNorth, 2018. Presentation Investor Day – LabNorth. [pdf] Available at: <www.befimmo.be/sites/default/files/imce/publications/ presentation_investor_day_labnorth.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

LabNorth, n.d. ABOUT THE LAB [online] Available at: <labnorth.be/fr/about-the-lab> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

LabNorth, n.d. LabNorth. [online] Available at: <www.labnorth.be/en> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

LabNorth, n.d. WTC 1 [online] Available at: <www.labnorth.be/nl/locations/the-world-trade-center-tower-1> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Lemaire, P., 2018. Noordwijk: nieuwe perspectieven. A+, [online] 22 February. Available at: <www.a-plus.be/nl/opinie/quartier-nordnouvelles-perspectives/> [Accessed 26 May 2020] perspective.brussels, n.d. Information session Quartier Nord. [pdf] perspective.brussels. Available at: <perspective.brussels/sites/default/ files/poles/qn-session_dinfo-info_sessie.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Perspective.brussels, n.d. North District, next step? [online] Available at: <perspective.brussels/fr/actualites/north-district-next-step> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Sau-msi.brussels, 2017. Former Actiris building: SAU-MSI short-lists five prospective buyers. [online] Available at: <https://sau-msi. brussels/en/news/former-actiris-building-sau-msi-short-lists-five-prospective-buyers> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

See-U, n.d. Project. [online] Available at: <www.see-u.brussels/le-projet/> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

SVG, 2012. Actiris wil ‘ongezellig gebouw’ verkopen. BRUZZ, [online] 5 December. Available at: <www.bruzz.be/samenleving/actiris-wil-ongezellig-gebouw-verkopen-2012-12-05> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Toestand, n.d. [online] Available at: <toestand.be/> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Up4North, 2018. Launch Do You North. [press release] 24 July 2018. Available at: <www.befimmo.be/sites/default/files/do240718-_you_ north_en_0.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Up4North, 2018. Presentation Investor Day – Up4North. [pdf] Befimmo. Available at: <www.befimmo.be/sites/default/files/imce/ publications/presentation_investor_day_up4north.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Up4North, 2019. Presentation by AG Real Estate and Befimmo at VOKA Metropolitan (NL). [pdf] Available at: <https://www.befimmo.be/ sites/default/files/imce/publications/up4north_-_presentation_voka_-_08_05_2018_-_final_-_v2.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Usquare.brussels, n.d. Usquare.brussels. [online] Available at: <usquare.brussels/en> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

WTC: A Love Story, 2020. [film] Directed by Wouter de Raeve and Lietje Bauwens, Belgium: 431.

Van Renterghem, B. and Grumiau, S., 2019. De strijd om leegstaand Brussel: privé en vzw gaan in debat. BRUZZ, [online] 14 June. Available at: <www.bruzz.be/samenleving/de-strijd-om-leegstaand-brussel-prive-en-vzw-gaan-debat-2019-06-14> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

VT, 2019. CCN-gebouw dan toch niet in handen van Ghelamco. BRUZZ, [online] 14 April. Available at: <www.bruzz.be/stedenbouw/ccngebouw-dan-toch-niet-handen-van-ghelamco-2019-04-16> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

You Are Here, 2018. You Are Here. [press release] 22 May 2018. Available at: <youarehere.brussels/assets/pdfs/YAH_press_text_FINAL_ ENG_layout.pdf > [Accessed 26 May 2020].

You Are Here, n.d. You Are Here. [online] Available at: <youarehere.brussels/> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Image List

129

Fig 1

Fig 9

Nijs, S., n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <www. bruzz.be/news/officieel-recyclart-verhuist-naarmolenbeek-2018-05-15> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

DR, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <www.lalibre. be/regions/bruxelles/bruxelles-ville-pas-de-plan-b-pour-lerecyclart-5a78c286cd70fdabb9d585f7> [Accessed: 26 May 2020].

Fig 2 Put, I., n.d. Pepijn Kennis (vzw Toestand) en Dries Vanneste (Entrakt.). [image online] Available at: <www.bruzz.be/ samenleving/de-strijd-om-leegstaand-brussel-prive-en-vzwgaan-debat-2019-06-14> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 10 [Studio CityGate] n.d. [image online] Available at: <artistcommons.net/studio-city-gate/> [Accessed: 26 May 2020].

Fig 3

Fig 11

Betermier, F., n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <focus. levif.be/culture/musique/mes-adieux-a-recyclart-c-etaitvraiment-bien-mais-pas-tout-le-temps/article-column-791257. html> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

[Home for Less] 2019. [image online] Available at: <www.see-u. brussels/portfolio-item/home-for-less/> [Accessed: 26 May 2020].

Fig 4

Fig 12

See-U, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <www.see-u. brussels/le-projet/> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

de Smet, A., 2013. Location of the cases in the Brussels Region. [map] Available at: <journals.openedition.org/ brussels/1196?lang=en> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 5

Fig 13

BRUZZ, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <www. bruzz.be/samenleving/actiris-wil-ongezellig-gebouw-verkopen-2012-12-05> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

irismonument, 1968. projet pour le world trade center, montrant l’esplanade sur les socles [image]. Reproduced in perspective.brussels, n.d. Information session Quartier Nord. [pdf] perspective.brussels. Available at: <perspective.brussels/ sites/default/files/poles/qn-session_dinfo-info_sessie.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 6 See-U, n.d. untitled. [online image] Available at: <www.see-u. brussels/le-projet/> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 7

Fig 14

pave-marolles, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <www. pave-marolles.be/recyclart-evince-par-la-sncb-oui-maispourquoi/> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Put, I., n.d. Pepijn Kennis (vzw Toestand) en Dries Vanneste (Entrakt.). [image online] Available at: <www.bruzz.be/ samenleving/de-strijd-om-leegstaand-brussel-prive-en-vzwgaan-debat-2019-06-14> [Accessed: 26 May 2020].

Fig 8

Fig 15

Toestand, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <toestand. be/projecten> [Accessed: 26 May 2020].

Toestand, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <toestand. be/over> [Accessed: 26 May 2020].

Fig 16-22

Fig 37

Toestand, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <toestand. be/projecten> [Accessed: 26 May 2020].

LabNorth, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: < labnorth. be/nl/locations/the-world-trade-center-tower-1/floor-17> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 23 Communa, n.d. House VDH. [image online] Available at: <http://www.communa.be/lieux/> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 38

Fig 24

Fig 39

See-U, n.d. untitled [collage of images] Available at: <www. see-u.brussels/occupants/> [Accessed: 17 March 2020].

LabNorth, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: < labnorth. be/nl/locations/the-world-trade-center-tower-1/floor-17> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 25 Agenda.brussels, n.d. Velodrome van Elsene. [online image] Available at: <agenda.brussels/nl/place/274479/velodromevan-elsene> [Accessed: 26 May 2020].

Fig 26

Fig 40 – 41 LabNorth, n.d. untitled.

Fig 42

Entrakt, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <citydevbrussels.prezly.com/communique-de-presse-sudiocitygate#> [Accessed: 26 May 2020].

LabNorth, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <www.befimmo.be/sites/default/files/imce/publications/ presentation_investor_day_labnorth.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 27

Fig 43

sau-msi.brussels, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <sau-msi.brussels/en/news/additional-visit-former-actirisbuilding-part-selling-process> [Accessed: 26 May 2020].

LabNorth, n.d. WTC 1 [image online] Available at: <www. labnorth.be/nl/locations/the-world-trade-center-tower-1> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 28

Fig 44

Pascal Smet, P., n.d. Zuilenzaal onder de sporen. [image online] Available at: <www.bruzz.be/stedenbouw/nmbs-wil-paleizenonder-de-sporen-nu-toch-gebruiken-2020-02-03> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Binst, J., n.d. Tijdens de Architectuur Biënnale Rotterdam (in WTC-toren I) in juni, kan het publiek op de 23ste etage. [image online] Available at: <www.bruzz.be/videoreeks/donderdag-12april-2018/video-jouw-vraag-kan-je-de-wtc-i-toren-bezoekenzijn-er-ook> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 29 130

LabNorth, n.d. untitled.

Recyclart must leave its home, beloved by locals, under the Chapelle train station, n.d. [image online] Available at: <www. thebulletin.be/molenbeek-council-offers-new-home-recyclart> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 45

Fig 30

Fig 46

Put, I., n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <www.bruzz. be/samenleving/de-strijd-om-leegstaand-brussel-prive-en-vzwgaan-debat-2019-06-14> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 31 LabNorth, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <www.befimmo.be/sites/default/files/imce/publications/ presentation_investor_day_labnorth.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 32 LabNorth, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <www. lettreducadre.fr/17316/lab-north-quand-le-prive-incite-lepublic-a-reprendre-un-quartier-en-main/> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

IABR, n.d. The Missing Link: Brussel. [image online] Available at: <iabr.nl/en/editie/yah2018> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

AWB, n.d. Our future in the delta. [image online] Available at: <iabr.nl/en/editie/yah2018> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 47 LabNorth, n.d. [Café North]. [image online] Available at: <http://labnorth.be/fr/about-the-lab> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 48 Alive Architecture, n.d. FARMTRUCK. [image online] Available at: <landezine.com/index.php/2017/03/parckdesign-bytaktyk-and-alive-architecture/> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 49

LabNorth, n.d. untitled.

Marcel Biek Cafe, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <https://www.befimmo.be/sites/default/files/ imce/publications/up4north_-_presentation_voka__08_05_2018_-_final_-_v2.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 35

Fig 50-51

LabNorth, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: < labnorth. be/nl/locations/the-world-trade-center-tower-1/floor-17> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

LabNorth, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <labnorth. be/nl/locations/the-world-trade-center-tower-1/floor-17> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 36

Fig 52

LabNorth, n.d. untitled.

Up4North, n.d. [Pulse Air]. [image online] Available at: <www.befimmo.be/sites/default/files/imce/publications/ presentation_investor_day_up4north.pdf> [Accessed: 26 May 2020].

Fig 33 – 34

Fig 53-59

Fig 74

LabNorth, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <labnorth. be/nl/locations/the-world-trade-center-tower-1/floor-17> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Commune de Saint Josse, n.d. untitled. [photograph] Available at: <perspective.brussels/sites/default/files/poles/qn-session_ dinfo-info_sessie.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 60 -61

Fig 75

Alive Architecture, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <http://www.alivearchitecture.eu/index.php/> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Bruxelles Mobilité, n.d. untitled. [map] Available at: <perspective.brussels/sites/default/files/poles/qn-session_ dinfo-info_sessie.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 62

Fig 76

Up4North, n.d. [property owners]. [image online] Available at: <www.befimmo.be/sites/default/files/imce/publications/ presentation_investor_day_up4north.pdf> [Accessed: 26 May 2020].

[MAX ON SENNE] n.d. [online image] Available at: <bma. brussels/fr/2019/12/02/appel-max-senne/> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 63

Fig 77

The Bulletin, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <www. thebulletin.be/legal-action-over-treatment-maximilian-parkrefugees> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Bruxelles Environnement, n.d. Le Projet Urbain MAXSUR-SENNE. [map] Available at: <perspective.brussels/ sites/default/files/poles/qn-session_dinfo-info_sessie.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 64

Fig 78

Baens, C., n.d. Bolivarlaan, 2040. [image online] Available at: <www.a-plus.be/nl/opinie/quartier-nord-nouvellesperspectives/> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

LabNorth, n.d. untitled. [image online] Available at: <www.befimmo.be/sites/default/files/imce/publications/ presentation_investor_day_labnorth.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 65 – 66 ZIN, n.d. [image online] Available at: <www.befimmo.be/en/ portfolio/zin#zone-gallery> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 79

LabNorth, n.d. untitled.

Up4North, n.d. [North Plek]. [image online] Available at: <www.befimmo.be/sites/default/files/imce/publications/ presentation_investor_day_up4north.pdf> [Accessed: 26 May 2020].

Fig 68

Fig 80

Leyssen, D., n.d. Jury van de ontwerpstudio ‘Hybrid Business Districts – Brussels North’ van Freek Persyn, Dieter Leyssen en Nick Ceulemans van UHasselt. [image online] Available at: <www.a-plus.be/nl/opinie/quartier-nord-nouvellesperspectives/> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

LabNorth, n.d. untitled.

Fig 67

Fig 69 [CCN building] n.d. [image online] Available at: <www.atenor. eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/2019-CCN-Selection-ofarchitects-and-planners.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020] Fig 70 LabNorth, n.d. untitled.

Fig 71 Up4North, 2018. WHAT DOES LAB NORTH STAND FOR?. [image online] Available at: <www.befimmo.be/sites/default/ files/imce/publications/presentation_investor_day_up4north. pdf> [Accessed: 26 May 2020].

Fig 72 perspective.brussels, n.d. Une Vision globale. [map] Available at: <perspective.brussels/sites/default/files/poles/qn-session_ dinfo-info_sessie.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 73 Commune de Schearbeek, 2019. [RÉAMÉNAGEMENT DU TUNNEL QUATRECHT]. [map] Available at: <perspective. brussels/sites/default/files/poles/qn-session_dinfo-info_ sessie.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 81 perspective.brussels, n.d. Diagnostic DES POLES ECONOMIQUES. [map] Available at: <perspective.brussels/ sites/default/files/poles/qn-session_dinfo-info_sessie.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 82 perspective.brussels, n.d. [Thématiques Transversales]. [map] Available at: <perspective.brussels/sites/default/files/poles/qnsession_dinfo-info_sessie.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 83 perspective.brussels, n.d. Vision spatiale. [map] Available at: <perspective.brussels/sites/default/files/poles/qn-session_ dinfo-info_sessie.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 84 Commune de Schearbeek, 2019. [Traversées piétonnes]. [map] Available at: <perspective.brussels/sites/default/files/poles/qnsession_dinfo-info_sessie.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 85-87 ZIN ZIN, n.d. [image online] Available at: <www.befimmo.be/en/ portfolio/zin#zone-gallery> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

Fig 88 Axa I.M., n.d. Étude de volumétrie. [image] Available at: <perspective.brussels/sites/default/files/poles/qn-session_ dinfo-info_sessie.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2020].

131

Temporary use period at the WTC is only a small aspect of the history and developments of the Northern Quarter in Brussels. For supplementary booklet and further research on topics surrounding the area, please look at publications on the following issuu page.

For overview of content visit the Instagram page.

Issuu page: https://issuu.com/welcometojasperstown/ stacks Instagram page: https://www.instagram.com/jaspers.town/