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.

 

Abstract

 

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.