Spatial Aspect`of planning

INTREPRENUALISM AND PATTERNS OF EXCLUSION CASE OF BRUSSELS INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMNET PLAN (IDP)

Payam Tabrizian I H02N1a I Strategic Spatial Planning I Final assignment Department of Architecture, Urbanism and Planning Katholieke Univeristeit Leuven I Spring 2011

ABSTRACT

Realization of an International Development Plan (IDP) by the regional government at the end of 2007 reveals a significant shift in urban policies in Brussels. Highlight-­‐ ing ten ‘Strategic’ sites in the city, IDP marks essentially the formalization of a relatively new framework for Brussels aiming development of significant portions of the regional territory for the purposes of private real estate developments of a speculative character. Conceived to operate as strategic levers of marketing and urban ‘revitalization’ IDP seems to be transparent in regarding its impact on the social fabric particularly on the low-­‐income central neighborhoods of the city.This research aims to categorize IDP as a model for a ‘project based planning’ which been realized to establish the exceptionality measures in planning and policy procedures of the city and finally, it encourage rehabilitation of city’s historic centres intensify-­‐ ing the social and spatial divisions. In the first part, the paper elaborates a theoreti-­‐ cal framework based on previous case studies as a lens to inspect relationships between local and global dimensions of IDP as a ‘large scale urban development project’. This as an analytical method will be employed in the second part to analyze the political, social and institutional dynamics and socio-­‐economic processes of polarization/exclusion in different spatial scales.

Keywords: International development plan, Brussels, Large scale urban development projects, Social exclusion and inequalities, Entrepreneurial policy, city branding

1 INTRODUCTION: IDP, the content and the objectives

Brussels as well as many other European cities has been facing a significant growth in social and spatial inequalities during the past 30 years (Kesteloot et al 2009,Van Criekingen 2009,Loopmans et al, 2006,Moulaert et al, 2003,). This has been charged by ‘global’ shifts and transformation of contemporary cities intensified or mediated by local urban policies and strategies (Swyngedouw et al, 2003). The reflection of such transfor-­‐ mation has resulted to a significant transition towards a more ‘elite-­‐driven’ market-­‐led urban planning policy 1 emphasizing the promotion of ‘territorial resources’and ‘large-­‐scale development ‘projects.

1 For example available and well-situated

pieces of vacant land, a qualified and multilingual workforce, Enhanced architectural heritage, etc.). The organization Enhanced architectural heritage, etc.). The organization of events with wide media coverage or the realization of large-scale real estate projects (e.g. museums, stadiums, blocks of flats or office towers, stations or air terminals, etc., adorned with the signature of a worldfamous architect) are recurring characteristics of such new urban policies.

International Development Plan for Brussels (IDP), launched in 2007 by the Brussels Government pushed such new type of urban political action into the foreground forming new priorities in political, social and economic order of the city. Through introduction of the IDP, Brussels inscribed within a rationale based on interurban competition, and narrowed its ambitions down to consoli-­‐ dating its place within international business ranking. (Van criekingen, 2008)

‘Today, most studies comparing the competitive position of European cities place Brussels between the 4th and the 6th position. The maintenance of this situation is not guaranteed.’ (Feuille de route, p.1)

The primary objective of the regional government within the framework of IDP is expanding the region’s tax basis through Valorization of large territories within the Brussels region (BCR) and implementation of large-­‐scale supra-­‐ regional facilities (such as a shopping mall, a football stadium, exhibition spaces, congress and concert halls). Focusing on certain areas within of the territory designated as ‘strategic sites’, these developments are thought to be conduct-­‐ ed by new public-­‐private coalitions, and framed by ad hoc planning procedures (e.g. speeding-­‐up the procedures for granting building permits) (Van Criek-­‐ ingen, 2009).

The primary plot of “the Plan for Interna-­‐ tional Development of Brussels” (PWC-­‐ report) presented in August 2007 and its approved successor “Fuille the route” (the road map) released in January 2008.The PWC report has been elaborated by a

ENTREPRENEUALISM AND PATTERNS OF EXCLUSION Case of Brussels IDP

2

worldwide known consultancy office “Price Water Coopers”, under the authori-­‐ ty and launched by the Brussels Govern-­‐ ment. The first chapter of the plan is an evaluation of Brussels’ international position. Through benchmarking analysis and interviews with 55 experts, this international role is assessed by indica-­‐ tors referring to its international busi-­‐ ness-­‐climate. Outlining 5 directive guidelines, the IDP states that a future vision should be based upon the SWOT-­‐ analysis that resulted from the previous benchmarking analysis and expert-­‐ interviews. The second chapter puts forth a “city-­‐marketing strategy“ for achieving this vision. In the third chapter, the report highlights “ten strategic areas for the future of Brussels” (Feuille de route, p.6) announcing several major projects, including a conference centre (3,000 seats), an exhibition hall (15,000 m2), a concert hall (15,000 seats), a stadium which would meet FIFA standards (in the framework of a possible Belgian-­‐Dutch bid for the 2018 football World Cup) and a new shopping centre (60,000 m2). New office areas and housing are also an-­‐ nounced in most of these areas (figure 1).

This concerns large sites which are uninhabited or emptied of their inhabit-­‐ ants (e.g. West station and Tour and taxis), whose (re) development cannot take place by simply accumulating individual building renovation opera-­‐ tions, but requires the injection of a large amount of capital. Together, these ten areas represent a combined surface area of about 7% of the regional territory, and cover the main part of the Region’s last remaining land stock (Van Criekingen, 2008,Vermeulen, 2009). The budget allocated for ‘development of strategic areas of the IDP’ was €130 million as a

result of a cooperation agreement between the Region and the federal state (Beliris, amendment n°10, period 2008-­‐ 2010).

A closer inspection of IDP scheme reveals its fundamental orientation in favour of marketing real estate stakes and inter-­‐ ests. Perhaps, initiation of the IDP can associated with the current situation of the Brussels real estate market. For instance the renewal of existing vacant and relict offices 2 can be regarded as important stake, in particular in the city centre (administrative quarter, European quarter, e.g.). This paper argues that IDP, cannot be simply perceived as another comprehensive plan for the city, it marks a significant transition toward new forms of governance (economic and urban) and establishes a new relationship between the ‘strategic projects’ and political, social and economic power relation in the city (Moulaert et al, 2003).

2 THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK: Neo-­‐ liberal urban policy and bypassing strategies

As a result a comparison between 13 large-­‐scale development projects in Europe (URSPIC-­‐research), Moulaert, Swyngedouw and Rodriguez (2003) developed an model to analyze the

2 In this respect, the office market shows obvious signs of oversupply, with almost 2 million m2 of unoccupied space in the regional territory (general vacancy rate: 18%), of which only just over one third is available on the market. The remainder (i.e. the empty offices which are not on the market) 13 doubled between 1994 and 2008 (i.e. from 600,000 to 1.2 million m2), whereas the total stock of offices ‘only’ increased by 37% during the same period (AATL and SDRB, 2009).

ENTREPRENEUALISM AND PATTERNS OF EXCLUSION Case of Brussels IDP

3

dynamics between global economic dynamics and transforming urban policies and changing political priorities between most North-­‐American and Western European cities (Moulaert et al,2003).There they identify contributing elements of the contemporary shift from the former classic (modernist/fordist) comprehensive plan and their statutory legislation to the post-­‐fordist emblematic project.The post-­‐fordist project, they argue, relies on marketing purposes, benefits from flexibility, targeted actions and symbolic capacity to mobilize economic growth and mutates segments of the city into emblems of restructuring, improvement and economic suc-­‐ cess(Vermeulen,2009).

“The main objective of these projects is to obtain higher social and economic returns and to revalue prime urban land, and to re-­‐ enforce competitive positions of the economy of a city”. (Swyngedouw et al, 2002)

Such Large scale urban development projects (UDP’s), like museums, sport stadium, Concert venues etc., are often represented as emblematic projects in a spatially targeted area, Intimately in touch with real estate development and realized through privatization of public funds, but often executed by local authorities. The main argument of URSPIC-­‐research is that: “Large-­‐scale UDP’s have increasingly been used as a vehicle to establish exceptionality measures in planning and policy proce-­‐ dures”(Swyngedouw et al, 2002). It is argued there that exceptionality is a fundamental component of the ‘the new urban policy’ – a project-­‐based urbanism, as noted above. UDP’s normally, replace existing planning instruments and

legislation. Furthermore, the primary conception, design and implementation of them, is often situated at the margins of formal planning structures. Decision-­‐ making therefore, is equally positioned in the area of non-­‐democratic decision-­‐ making, bypassing statutory procedures (Swyngedouw et al, 2002, Van criekengen, 2008, Vermeulen, 2009,).

Shifting political priorities and govern-­‐ mental justifications range from scale issues, the emblematic character of the operation, timing procedures, the need for more flexibility, efficiency criteria, etc.

On the practical level, these measures of exceptionality, encompass the following by-­‐passing strategies:(a) Freezing of conventional planning tools, (b) Bypass-­‐ ing of statutory regulations and institu-­‐ tional bodies, (c) Changes in national or regional regulations and (d) emergence of project agencies with special or excep-­‐ tional powers of intervention in decision-­‐ making (Swyngedouw et al, 2002, Moulaert et al, 2003).

These results as an analytical model will serve this research to understand mentality of the transformation process, the actors, agents and institutions involved in IDP from the concept devel-­‐ opment to valorization of the plan. This would allow the paper to achieve its main premise which is examining the IDP effectiveness in addressing /intensifying the process of social polarization and exclusion in Brussels. Two official documents, The basic scheme (PWC, 2007) and the revision (Fuille the route, 2008) will be central as sources in this paper.

ENTREPRENEUALISM AND PATTERNS OF EXCLUSION Case of Brussels IDP

4

3 DYNAMICS OF IDP/ BYPASSING STRATEGIES AND PATTERNS OF EXCLUSION

3.1The new urban / economic policies

“The UDPs reflect and embody a series of processes that are associated with chang-­‐ ing spatial scales of governance; these changes, in turn, reflect a shifting geome-­‐ try of power in the governing of urbaniza-­‐ tion. “(Swyngedouw et al, 2002)

The first and the most important aspect of IDP as a statutory reform is its significant contradiction with the planning models that has been employed during the post-­‐ war period of strong economic growth in Brussels. Introduced as a ‘vehicle for steering the regional policies in the years to come’ (Feuille de route, p.1), IDP adopts an entirely different approach from the former comprehensive plan of Brussels ‘Regional Development Plan (RDP)’ and renders a significant change in political priorities of the government. IDP can be conceived as a shift towards a full-­‐ fledged entrepreneurial policy by attracting international investors, foreign visitors, tourists or conference delegates, and whatever extra-­‐local clienteles of consumers and residents by opening up vacant lands and brownfield sites to speculative real estate development projects. Contrary to the ‘revitalization’ Strategies of RDP, which is based on the vision of the local middle classes as the true ‘city saviours’ and mediums of ‘Social mix ‘ (Van Criekingen, 2008). IDP recon-­‐ ceptualise ‘social mix’ (as well as multi-­‐ culturalism) as a vehicle for marketing towards extra-­‐local clients (investors, tourists and).

These marketing policies aiming to establish exceptionality measures addressing the well-­‐to-­‐do customers mark a noticeable increase in polarization and inequalities between social groups (OECD 2008) and territories (Marcuse & van Kempen 2000, Moulaert et al. 2003, Berry-­‐Chikhaoui et al. 2007,Van Criek-­‐ ingen, 2008). Regarding the liberal character of renting regulations in Brussels3 and since many of the designat-­‐ ed strategic sites are located in the low-­‐ income 4 neighbourhoods (Molebeenk, Anderlecht, Schaerbeek etc.), gentrifica-­‐ tion and spatial reorganization of the vulnerable social fabric will be a inevita-­‐ ble consequence of this process. For instance increased impoverishment of certain local populations (e.g. due to the increased rent within the household budget) or the eviction of certain inhabit-­‐ ants of ‘revitalized’ neighborhoods (Van Criekingen 2006). In this regard IDP seems be completely ignorant in regard-­‐ ing the social externalities of gentrifica-­‐ tion policy. It even encourages forcing the working classes out of inner city neigh-­‐ bourhoods.

" [The plan advocates to] develop a city marketing strategy at the neighborhood scale… notably for the most impoverished neighborhoods, in order to increase their value as well as to prevent their negative

3 i.e. very little social housing, an ineffectiveness of

the rules for limiting an increase in rent between two leases, and housing benefits limited to very small segments of the total amount of housing available for rent.

4 These neighborhoods accommodate a relatively high percentage of unemployed inhabitants with average of 45 percent unemployment of young .

37 percent of the earn inhabitants below the the average income of Brussels .

ENTREPRENEUALISM AND PATTERNS OF EXCLUSION Case of Brussels IDP

5

image from transcending their boundaries and harming the international image of the city ("Bronx" effect) … Social mix must be a main thread of urban development in Brussels. One must enforce both outgoing flows from priority zones [i.e. inner working-­‐class neighborhoods] in order to avoid the concentration of poverty in social ghettos, and ingoing flows into these zones by stimulating the installation of middle class populations" (Price Water house Coppers, 2007: 72-­‐3 –Translation Van Criekingen, 2009).

Another remark on IDP urban vision can regard its downscaling the urban vision from regional development to project base local regeneration. Locating 10 development zones selected in the IDP, the spatial process of polycentric devel-­‐ opment is visible. This might indicate “segmentation of labour market” and further decentralization of current socio-­‐ economic pattern of the Brussels’ region.

The choice of such a rather de-­‐centralized development increases polarization within urban policy itself. While urban actors choose to continue with the development of neighbourhood contracts (area-­‐based local interventions to improve social cohesion and adaptation of the labour market, a noticeable concern will be the increasing separation between remaining local communities and the incoming workforce.

3.2 The Actors and instruments of bypassing strategy

The other necessary step in understand-­‐ ing the intentions and mentality behind IDP is looking at the contributing actors and agents in the decision-­‐making or implementation process. As discussed

before, The IDP plan is basically initiated by economic elites pushing neoliberal agendas, that is, as argued by Wilson, Supporting strategies "[dedicated to] resuscitate cities a sites for capital accumulation" (Wilson, 2004). More precisely, it has been founded based on contributions from a selected panel of city actors, among which real estate business-­‐ es (i.e. developers, investors, consultants) and federations of enterprises were predominant (Van Criekingen, 2009, Vermeulen, 2009). Among these, real estate operators (brokers, consultants, developers, investors) were best repre-­‐ sented (12 out of 45 institutions inter-­‐ viewed), followed by employers’ federa-­‐ tions (Brussels-­‐based, Belgian and European – 7 out of 45 institutions), seven semi-­‐public institutions in charge of the economic and commercial devel-­‐ opment of the city, five architectural firms, major performing arts institutions five and higher education institutions.

Trade unions or local communities and associations were not included neither the ‘simple’ inhabitants. (Van Criekingen, 2008). The adoption of the IDP seems thus to indicate the formal emergence of a new "glocal" growth coalition in Brussels, operating in three different dimensions:

First is, a coalition between the regional political elites and the trans -­‐nationalized economic elites operating Brussels and pushing forward a fully-­‐fledged neoliberal urban project (Van Criekingen, 2008,Swyngedouw et al 2006). Conse-­‐ quently, the parties who were traditional-­‐ ly advocating the "revitalization" agenda have been consciously kept out of the elaboration of the new "international development" strategy. (Van Criekingen, 2009).

ENTREPRENEUALISM AND PATTERNS OF EXCLUSION Case of Brussels IDP

6

The second form of a coalition is between public and semi-­‐public actors, for instance between regional government and SNCB (the national rail way company of Belgium) in the case of 4 sites along the rail way line namely Tour and Taxis, Schaerbeek, West station and South station. The decision making for launch-­‐ ing the projects, negotiations for selling the lands to private stakeholders, are usually made by steering committees and boards of directors of SNCB in forms of private meeting and kept from public scrutiny.

The third type of coalition forms as public-­‐private partnerships “PPPs” 5 to share the risks of developing ten large-­‐ scale projects, which requires injection of a large amount of capital. As mentioned before, office renewal strategy is an important stake for the public sector. This hand in hand with on-­‐going increase in private housing projects realized for high-­‐ end clients (e.g. expatriate company executives) and the emerging interest of young middle class households wishing to settle in the city on the other, has attract-­‐ ed private investments towards, hybrid complexes composing offices, shops and housing, community facilities (stadium, event hall, cultural facilities, etc.) or re-­‐ using the vacant office plots into exclusive housing. Evidently, realization of such projects requires new vacant sites, easier access to permits or the opening of infrastructure markets to be obtained in a public-­‐private partnership (museums, stadiums, schools, prisons, etc.)(Van Criekingen, 2008, Aveline-­‐Dubach 2008).

5 “In a broad partnership across institutional boundaries or borders public / private (Price water coopers, 2007,p.27).”

These forms of coalition-­‐formation at the level of project formulation and imple-­‐ mentation mark a sharp division between actual governance and civil society in terms of alliance of public /private interests in one side and growing group of marginalized on the other (Swyngedouw et al,2002). On the other side, these kind of partnerships sometimes results in freezing the projects in different stages, either due to continual disagreements between different private and public partners as with Tour et Taxis (whose formulation procedure lasted two Years), or due to the realization of lengthy technical feasibility studies which were imposed belatedly on the consultancy firm, as in the case of the West Station (where the finalization and adoption of project has been pending since January 2008).

3.3 The Institutional reorganization of the bypassing strategy

As discussed before, and also mentioned

by Swyngedouw ,Moulaert and Rodriguez, the new system of governance(alliance between public sector and economic elites) goes hand in hand with “estab-­‐ lishment of centralized and more auto-­‐ cratic forms of management, which privileges direct appointments “(Swyngedouw et al ,2002) and marks new form of institutional reorganization both in project formulation and imple-­‐ mentation procedure .The Establishment of ATD can be a clear instance of such interventions.

Aligned with the bypassing agenda and in order to accelerate the revitalization of the highlighted strategic sites, a non-­‐ profit institution established directly

ENTREPRENEUALISM AND PATTERNS OF EXCLUSION Case of Brussels IDP

7

supervised by the national state executive power. This institution is called ATD (The Agency for Territorial Development and introduced as ‘the operational tool for regional strategic plans, in charge of the management of major projects such as the facilities included in the IDP’ (Feuille de route, p. 18). ATD is responsible to valorize land, with an explicit priority to those areas selected in the IDP. ATD takes Strategic missions, which are either new (city marketing, e.g.) or transferred from the regional administration. In this respect, the IDP announces ‘the possibility of establishing special procedures for the issue of permits for certain strategic areas at European and international level’ (Feuille de route, p. 18), which is a task included in the current organisational and statutory reform of the Code Bruxellois de l’Aménagement du Territoire (COBAT) (Van Criekingen, 2009,Vermeulen, 2009).

In principle local municipalities are in charge of these permits. Now, the regional government can operate autonomously to develop the zones delineated in the IDP in a more flexible way.

It seems compulsory to observe that these forms of coalitions –or better say family ties-­‐in favour of private ‘elites’ can result to high level of freedom given to private developers in project formulation and implementation phase. This often allows the real estate developers take over the development and putting the public authorities outside the picture. This as a risk previously mitigated by an institution called SAF. (Société d’Acquisition Foncière, SAF) founded 2005 and was in charge of buying strategic grounds from the landowners such as Belgian National Railway Company (SNCB) in the Leverage areas or areas of regional interest. This

was allowing the public sector to obtain a pivotal role in the future development of these sites in order to avoid the territorial fragmentation and controlling the land rent growth. In the framework of IDP there is no policy regarding the necessity of involving SAF in development of the strategic sites. Consequently huge portions of strategic sites are being negotiated directly with the international real-­‐state developers for speculative projects. For instance, The Association Project T&T signed a buying agreement with SNCB for developing tour and taxis.

The concept development and project formulation normally happens in atmos-­‐ phere of global competition between the worlds leading architects and engineering consultancies with slight preference (and sometimes biased) in selection of Belgian firms. These international competitions are held aligned with branding strategy of ‘cultural capital ‘, and mobilizing the political power positions at local, regional and national level. For instance tour and taxi development competition held between several national and interna-­‐ tional firms (Vigano and secchi , Bereau Bas Smets , etc.)

Two other institutions, both subsidized by regional government, namely Brus-­‐ selse Raad voor het Leefmilieu (BRAL) and Inter-­‐Environnement Bruxelles (IEB) appointed to establish the dialogues directly with the ‘inhabitants as a participatory process.’It obvious then to observe that the participation of inhabit-­‐ ants, which was so widely heralded a priori and spoken so highly of a posterio-­‐ ri, did not lead to the expected outcomes either due to a lack of clearly defined objectives, methods and limits or ambigu-­‐ ity of the presentation models and plans .

ENTREPRENEUALISM AND PATTERNS OF EXCLUSION Case of Brussels IDP

8

In a much more obvious way, as regards the projects related to the Tour and Taxi and the West Station, one would have to look hard to find evidence of demands made specifically by citizens in terms of content proposals such as those regarding the transparency of procedures.

Finally, for each of the projects studied, the participation of inhabitants was organised essentially in the form of information meetings or workshops by BRAL (for the state administrative district and Tour et Taxis) and IEB (for the West Station and the European quarter), which were given this mission by the public authorities, in consultation with the selected consultancy firms. The latter sometimes had to learn to 'communicate' about relatively abstract projects and above all to justify in real time the decisions made with politicians as regards the orientation of these projects.

4 CONCLUSION

In previous section we observed that how IDP and its parallel interventions can be an instance for bypassing-­‐strategies typical for ‘neo-­‐liberal urban policy’.

Establishing exceptionality measures through realizing emblematic projects and branding strategies, mobilizing land stock by speculative real state projects through new forms of coalition, freezing conventional planning tools and institu-­‐ tions, introduction of new forms of autocratic management through the project agency ATO and the adaptation of regional planning regulations –the COBAT). The paper also tried to reveal the inefficiency of IDP as a successful integra-­‐ tive plan to address the neighbourhood problems specific to Brussels and relatively intensifying the city’s spatial and social divisions in different dimen-­‐ sions: Geographically how it leads to spatial fragmentation of deprived neighbourhoods in relation other neighborhoods and with the larger urban region as a whole. Socio -­‐economically, how it results in exclusion in accessing the urban labor market and housing market and finally how it delimits the neighborhood from obtaining access to the decision making process and finding a democratic expression for their political demands. For Brussels the challenge still remains: to find an ambitious and integrated development strategy planning that addresses both qualitative building projects with a sustainable urban plan for the city as whole, that evaluates local impacts and anticipates upon eventual negative effects, that involves all actors during the planning and design process of the projects proposed by the plan.

ENTREPRENEUALISM AND PATTERNS OF EXCLUSION Case of Brussels IDP

9

REFERENCES

• AVELINE-­‐DUBACH N. (2008) Immobilier -­‐ L'Asie, la bulle et la mondialisation, Paris, CNRS Editions.

• BEGG, I. “Cities and Competitiveness.”, (1999), Urban Studies, Vol. 36, No. 5-­‐6, pp. 795-­‐809.

• CORIJN E., VANDERMOTTEN C., DECROLY J. -­‐M., SWYNGEDOUW E. (2009) "États généraux de Bruxelles. Bruxelles, ville internationale", Brussels Studies, Note de synthèse n°13

• DECLROY J, VAN CRIEKEGEN M. (2009),”The Brussels International Development Plan (IDP): Real estate development promises and growing inequalities? , Brussels Studies ,“issue 25, 11 may 2009.

• DEJEMEPPE, P. (2008) “Plan de Développement International – Feuille de route,”

• DELMOTTE.F, HUBERT.M and TULKENS.F (2009), ” The master plans: what comes next?

Questions about the future of urban development in Brussels”, Brussels Studies, Issue 30

• DELNOY, M. (2007), La participation du public en droit de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement, Brussels, Larcier, , 937 pp.

• HARVEY D. (1989) "From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governancein late capitalism", Geografiska Annaler B., 71, 3-­‐17

• HUTCHINSON, A. “Gewestelijk Ontwikkelingsplan I. 1995.” [Regional Development Plan].

• KESTELOOT, Chr. LOOPMANS, M. (2010) ,“Social inequalities” ,Brussels Studies ,Symosion no 15

• LOOPMANS M. (2008) "Relevance, Gentrification and the Development of a New Hegemony on Urban Policies in Antwerp", Belgium, Urban Studies, 45, 12, 2499-­‐2519

• MOULAERT F., RODRIGUEZ A., SWYNGEDOUW E. (eds.) (2003) The Globalized City. Economic Restricting and Social Polarization in European Cities, Oxford

• Oxford University Press PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, “Plan de Développement International – Schéma de base. Rapport final,” 31 August 2001. [PWC-­‐report]

• SWYNGEDOUW, E, MOULAERT, F. AND RODRIGUEZ, A. (2004) ` Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe: Large-­‐scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy ', Anti-­‐ pode 34 (3): 542—77

• VAN CRIEKINGEN, M. (2008). Towards a geography of displacement. Moving out of Brussels’ gentrifying neighbourhoods. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 23(3), 199-­‐213

• Van Criekingen,M. and Decroly, J.M. (2009), “Het Plan voor Internationale Ontwikkeling. Belofte van vastgoedprojecten, maar toenemende ongelijkheden?,” Brussels Studies, Vol. 25 2009, pp.1-­‐ 16

• VANDERMOTTEN,Chr, LECLERCQ,E., CASSIERS,T.,VAYENS,B.(2009, ) The Brussels Economy.

Brussels Studies, Synopsis nr. 7, 26 january 2009

• WILSON D. (2004) "Toward a Contingent Neoliberalism", Urban Geography, 25, 8, 771-­‐783

ENTREPRENEUALISM AND PATTERNS OF EXCLUSION Case of Brussels IDP

10

INDEX 1

1.Heysel - shopping centre (60.000 m ), conference centre (>50.000 m ), concert hall (15.000 seats), football stadium meeting FIFA stantards 2.Tour & Taxis - housing (40%), offices (40%), facilities (20%), park 20 ha, open-air swimming pool (MP)

1 10

3.West Station - RER-métro-bustram station, new housing, offices and community facilities (MP) 4.South Station neighbourhhod new housing, offices for international businesses, hotels, 'convivial and safe neighbourhood'

2

9

3

8 5

5.Monts des Arts Brussels Information ,Point Square Meeting Centre (BIP),Magritte Museum, shops 6.Delta - new housing, offices, urban indutries (MP)

7

4

6

7.European district - eco-neighbourhood with offices ,shops, House of Europe - "mixed and convivial neighbourhood , housing(MP) 8.State Administration City offices (35%),shops (6%), community facilities (5%) (MP) ,(53%), housing 9.Josaphat - eco-neighbourhood with offices, housing, community facilities 10.Schaerbeek Formation logistics activities, offices, housing, football stadium meeting FIFA standards (?) (MP)

Figure 1. The ten strategic areas of the Brussels International Development Plan.

Sourcewww.demainbruxelles.be (Brussels Capital Region, 2008)

ENTREPRENEUALISM AND PATTERNS OF EXCLUSION Case of Brussels IDP

11