Kuhk A. (2002) ‘Behind closed doors? The excuse of safety!’ The
development of the European Capital in Brussels’, voor de conferentie ‘The
European City in Transition’ in the Bauhaus University Weimar, November 8-9
2002, 28 p.
Brussels
today counts about 25.000 employees working for the European institutions and
an equal share of people working in closely related businesses (Agora studies,
2002, p. 14). Different than Luxembourg or Strasbourg, Brussels chose to locate
the European institutions in the 19th century ‘Quartier Léopold’ and
not on the ‘green field’ in the outskirts (cfr. Papadopoulos, 1996). Brussels
continued the tradition of ‘superimposition of layers’ as known since the 18th
century (cfr. Lagrou, 2002). The paper ‘Behind closed doors? The excuse of
safety!’ focuses on the spatial (and social) transformation of the European
Quarter, and the urban and regional planning behind this development. The
analysis of planning trends for this site presents different actors involved
and their discourses, in which the argument of “safety” is frequently (ab)used.
To
understand the current constellation of the presence of the European
institutions in Brussels, we need to go back to the beginning of the 1950s.
Important steps for the international positioning of Brussels were taken when
establishing the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community), but also with the
Treaty of Rome in 1957, and the start of the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation) in 1958 with its headquarter in Brussels. Until the end of the
1980s, most questions concerning the location of EU-institutions were a matter
to be solved by the national government (1).
Brussels
has transformed meanwhile into a fairly independent city region, known as
‘Brussels Capital Region’ (2) with extended own responsibilities, also in
affairs of urban planning. Main tools here are the Regional Development Plans,
the Regional Land Use Plans and the authority for urban permits (cfr. Lagrou,
2000). As a third level of planning, also at least three of the 19
municipalities (3) that constitute Brussels are directly affected by the
European presence. Apart from the official institutions on federal, regional
and municipal levels, several different pressure groups are also involved in
the urban development of the quarter. The sector of real estate is represented
by project developers and investors. Last but not least, also the different
institutions of the European Union need to be considered when acting as
clients, each on behalf of their specific needs.
The
spatial analysis of the European Quarter starts from a brief sketch of the
historic development since 1840. It then shifts the attention to the gradual
embedding of the European Commission, Council of Ministers and Parliament. Both
current and possible future situations are presented with respect to the
enlargement of the European Union and the socio-economic impact on the city.
Apart from the purely functional analysis, also the changes in the identity of
the city with the emerging of the European presence in the heart of this 19th
century neighbourhood, as well as the desired and perceived identity of the
European institutions in Brussels are hereby touched.
A
closely connected question is the social and demographic development of the
European Quarter. The quarter – still mainly residential around 1950 – has
known important shifts in number and composition. A repeated question here is,
whether an expanding central administrative district with an ambiguous long
time perspective causes speculation and/or impoverishment in the surrounding
neighbourhoods (cfr. Baeten, 2001). In the prospect of further development of
the European Quarter in Brussels, we examine how “safety” is used as an
argument for spatial and social development.