Brussels – Capital of Belgium and Europe Carola Hein Bryn Mawr College, USA European unification has given rise to a new form of capital city. Superposing national, regional and local structures and their built expression, the European Union (EU) and its predecessors, the three European Communities (ECSC, EEC, and Euratom), constitute a new actor in the transposition of political powers into the built environment. Since the 1950s, the Belgian government, with support from the City of Brussels and in collaboration with corporate business, transformed Brussels from a regional centre into a metropolis and the de facto capital city of the EU. Visions for the development of a European district existed, but the concrete integration of the European organizations after 1958 occurred in a central inner-city location, at the detriment of the traditional city and largely against the interests of the inhabitants. Following on the economic growth period of the early 1960s, Brussels saw the emergence of citizen-initiatives opposing the ongoing radical urban transformation. Regionalization and the establishment of the democratically elected Brussels Region in 1989 introduced a new actor, who speaks for the citizen and at least partially oppose national politics. In the context of the larger questions, What is a capital? and What is its physical expression?, this paper identifies three different periods after 1945 and analyzes the position and concrete influences of different urban actors “national, regional, communitarian and local” in regard to the function and expression of Brussels capital of Europe, investigating political and administrative decisions, Brussels master plans and architectural realizations. The analysis of the inscription of the European function in Brussels will serve as example of global- local interactions that are more and more important in the design and planning of contemporary cities, pitching supranational institutions and multinational corporations whose size and international clout is an important economic factor against urban life quality and local representation. [email protected] 1 Introduction Brussels’ history and urban form have been shaped by the history of the Low Countries and the duchy of Brabant (Abeels 1982; Aron 1978; Bambotte-Verdicq 1978; Billen, Duvosquel and Case, 2000; Demey, 1992; Hein in Ember and Ember, 2002; Jacobs, 1994; Papadopoulos, 1996). Continuously occupied since the Roman period, the city grew around a fortified French encampment established by Charles of France in 979 as Bruocsella – “settlement in the marshes.” Eventually the city expanded to the higher grounds on the East. By the 13th century, the city started to thrive due to its position on the trading routes between Cologne and Bruges, and established itself as a centre for the manufacturing of textiles, tapestries, and other luxury goods. A regional capital under a variety of foreign occupants, following the Congress of Vienna, Belgium was united with the northern Netherlands, and Brussels became the second capital of the Dutch kings. Royal successions and warfare among the major European empires led to the sequential occupation of Brussels by France, Spain, the Habsburg Empire, and Germany. After the Belgian revolution of 1830, Brussels became the capital of the new nation. The new state integrated earlier markers of capital ambitions, such as the early parts of the ensemble of the Quartier du Parc, including the Place Royal, the Parc Royal, and the ring boulevard created on the site of the former fortification walls (Aron, Burniat and Puttemans 1990; Marez 1979). The second Belgian King, Léopold II (1865-1909), in particular, tried to give the city metropolitan and national character, stimulating major urban transformation financed with private money (Hall 1997; Ranieri 1973; Therborn 2002). During his tenure, municipal initiatives and royal interventions transformed Brussels to create the framework of a national capital. Under the Mayor Jules Anspach, the city realized the central boulevards (1868-1871) over the meandering river Zenne, cutting through the old city to connect the Northern and Southern train stations. These interventions complemented the King’s projects that focused on the Brussels’ suburbs. In tune with the comprehensive road development proposed by Victor Besme, surveyor of the roads of the suburbs of Brussels in 1863 and 1866, Léopold II introduced a complete plan for beautifying the city introducing major parks and green spaces, broad avenues and a uniform design for private buildings. The royal plans sometimes stood at odds with city government projects and some national projects, such as the creation of a central station linking the North and South station, proposed by Besme in 1858, which dragged on long after Léopold’s reign with the new train link opening only in 1952. Since Léopold II, no authority in Brussels has sponsored significant changes to beautify the capital. During both world wars, German forces occupied the city and briefly created a Greater Brussels administration in the Second World War, which was dismantled thereafter. Although Brussels did not suffer destruction during the Second World War, many neighborhoods were torn apart in the postwar period. High-rises and modern construction bordering decaying buildings and empty sites became characteristic. Investors bought entire blocks, one by one, let them decay, and were finally granted demolition and rebuilding permits when the old buildings could no longer be saved. Masterpieces, including major architectural works such as Victor Horta’s Maison du Peuple, were demolished. Particularly in the 1960s, new office buildings rose quickly and “bruxellisation” became a term for urban destruction. Radical large-scale transformation and destruction had been known in Léopold’s time, and the word architect is a curse in traditional areas such as the Marolles, where several densely-built blocks were expropriated to construct the enormous Palace of Justice, inaugurated in 1883. Recent interest in at least superficial history has created a new trend that is shaping Brussels: “façadisme,” meaning the preservation of the facades while the interiors are completely rebuilt (Käpplinger 1993). After World War II, disputes among the two major cultural and language groups led to regionalization. The full regionalization of 1989 equipped the three regions, Flanders, Walloon, 2 and Brussels-Capital, with important powers. Furthermore, Flemish and French community organizations address cultural issues beyond regional spheres. All but one of these organizations chose Brussels as their headquarters, making it the capital of the Flemish regional government (joined with the Flemish community), of the Brussels-Capital Region, and the French community (Lagrou 2000). The regional and community organizations constructed their government and administrative buildings throughout the city. So far they have had less impact on Brussels’ urban form than the 19th and early 20th century national capital designs or the post World War II transformation of Brussels as one – although the most important – of three official European capitals (Demey 1992; Hein 1993; Hein 1995; Hein 1987). The saga of Brussels, capital of Europe, began with Belgium’s refusal to host the first European organization, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) created in 1952. The other five member states agreed on the choice of Brussels, however parts of the Belgian government feared the strong French-speaking influence on the city. The Belgian negotiator offered Liège, a provincial city, instead the other member countries refused. After three days of intense discussion, Luxembourg’s president and foreign minister Joseph Bech offered his tiny capital as the temporary seat of the new European organization. While the member nations chose Luxembourg as the ECSC’s provisional seat, Strasbourg, for pragmatic reasons, became home to the European Parliament. The Council of Europe, an earlier, larger but less powerful European body was headquartered in Strasbourg, which had the only non-national plenary hall that could house the new assembly. This decision effectively decentralized the different ECSC organizations and laid the foundation for the current multi-headed capital (Hein 1993). Chosen in 1958 as the third of the supposedly temporary European capitals, Brussels became home to the European Economic Community (EEC) and Euratom - the two new European institutions created by the 1957 Treaty of Rome. With the fusion of the European Communities in 1967, the city lost the European Investment Bank (E.I.B.) to Luxembourg but became the main headquarters of the Commission and the only office for the Council of Ministers – to date the most powerful European organ. Brussels also fought successfully for years to obtain a presence of the European Parliament and has since grown into the largest among the three host cities. Each of the three organizations requested and obtained its own headquarters building over the last five decades. Their conception and construction followed in turn and each took a decade or more to finish. The history of their planning and construction mirrors the administrative, political, economic and urban transformations of the three periods discussed in this chapter. The star-shaped Berlaymont, headquarters building of the European Economic Commission, began the transformation of the former upper-class residential Quartier Léopold into an administrative district for the European organizations