What works for Brussels? Towards a common understanding of spatial and economic planning by ulb34

What Works for Brussels? Towards a common understanding of the intersection between spatial and economic planning

September 2018

Thanks The authors highly appreciated the participation of the following individuals at our first “What Works for Brussels?” event on June 4 2018: Solange Verger (Perspective), Louison Cuvelier (Perspective), Pezzuti Veronica (Perspective), Mégane Geeroms, Anastasia Battani, Jeremy Levin (Innoviris), Andrea Bortolotti (ULB), Didier Ledocte (Citidev), Marine Spor (ULB), Moritz Lennert (ULB, Philippe Micheaux Naudet (ACR+), Aristide Athanassiadis (ULB), giulia caterina verga, Kristiaan Borret (bMa), Julie Collet (bMa), Simon De Muynck (Centre d'écologie urbaine), Marion Courtois (ACR+), Julie Marin (KUL), Steyn van Assche (BRAL), Anthony NARALINGOM (HUB), Claire SCOHIER (IEB), Romina Cornejo (ULB Amandine Sellier (BE), Alvise Moretti, Caroline Philippe (SPRB), Olivier Beys (BBLV), Deborah Lambert (VUB), Mégane Geeroms, Fabio Vanin (VUB). We also thank the CIVA, and in particular Ophélie Goemaere, for hosting the event at the Kanal.

Credits Written by: Adrian Vickery Hill, Diego Luna Quintanilla & Stephan Kampelmann Illustrations: Diego Luna Quintanilla & Adrian Vickery Hill Layout: Diego Luna Quintanilla & Ivone Martinez First published: 29 September 2018 Reviewed: 5 October 2018 Study financed by Chair for Circular Economy and Urban Metabolism Université Libre de Bruxelles www.circularmetabolism.com

Contents

1. ‘What Works for Brussels?’

2. Tools for planning the urban economy

Visions

9 9

Programmes

Projects

3. Current issues in spatial and economic planning of Brussels

Brussels: trials and tribulations in planning

Connecting economic and spatial planning

4. Principles for an urban economy that works for Brussels

Indigenous Economy

Needs-based economy

Risk-taking economy

Circular economy

Cooperative economy

5. How do ongoing initiatives relate to the proposed development principles? 33

Economic mix in the canal area - BMA

Plan Industriel - IGEAT

Critique de la politique d’aménagement du territoire et ville productive IEB 35 Cities of Making

PREC - Bruxelles Environnement

6. Next steps References

‘What Works for Brussels?’ ... is the name we gave to a reflective process on the intersection between spatial and economic planning in Brussels. The rationale for this initiative is the widely shared observation of a weak link between economic development plans and spatial interventions occuring in Brussels. This process is an initiative of the Chair for Circular Economy and Urban Metabolism of the ULB, animated by Aristide Athanassiadis and Stephan Kampelmann. This was kicked off with an event on June 4 (2018) that brought together some of most eloquent voices from the urbanism milieu in Brussels. There seems to be a disconnection between economic and spatial planning in the Brussels region. On the one hand, strategies and programmes to boost regional development are mostly formulated in terms of sectors, types of activities, jobs or skills without specifying their relationship with a physical context. On the other hand, spatial interventions define how a specific site or area will be physyically transformed, but rarely explain how the spatial transformations link back to the categories of economic development. There are notable exceptions where the two areas rub shoulders, such as when the development of the tourism industry is associated with the protection of certain landmarks (such as the Grand Place) or when places are clearly earmarked for hosting a pre-identified sectoral cluster (such as the Reyers media site). But the symptoms of poor integration between spatial and economic planning in Brussels are extensive. We offer four examples: 1. In the Contrat de Quartier instrument, the physical interventions (production of housing, public space, infrastructure) are in many cases unrelated to investments in socio-economic projects. This has sometimes reduced the investments to “facelifting” operations that leave the economic dynamics of the neighbourhood either unchanged or gentrified via the housing market.

2. The ZEMU instrument (see p16) obliges developers to dedicate a certain portion of new projects to non-tertiary activites. In practice, the record of finished and planned projects on ZEMU sites is, however, disappointing from an economic perspective. Rather than strenghtening functional mix and the position of “entreprises in urban milieu”, the ZEMU is a tool for developers to convert industrial real estate into housing. The requirement of integrating a fraction of economically active space has led developers to propose minimal, sometimes absurd, arrangements due to the conflict between housing and noisy light industrial business. The result is destined to result in a proliferation of supermarkets and offices on commercial ground floors rather than fostering a healthy mix of economic activities.

Image: Abattoir (© Diego Luna)

3. Structural economic change is looming large on the horizon for several neighbourhoods: it is difficult to see how the trade in cars and car parts in Heyvaert or the garages and wholesale businesses in Masui will continue to occupy these neighbourhoods in the long-term. But despite this obvious challenge, so far alternative concepts for the economic transition of these neighbourhoods are lacking. Gentrification has started to reshape these areas - witness the Sennepark in Masui - but they are not connected to explicit economic strategies. The effect on the local economy could be disastrous: existing companies that depend on local social networks are likely to be pushed out through speculation and changes in land value. 4. Finally, the savant debates on new urban industries and the “productive city” have so far aroused one particular audience - urbanists and architects - who struggle themselves to gauge the complexity of the challenges for the sector. There are of course a lot of convincing arguments in favour of keeping citycompatible industry and inviting new forms of manufactring in the canal area. But so far the urbanists’ mantra of the “productive city” has failed to engage eye-to-eye with the socio-economic realities of the urban economy of Brussels. On any account, there is a large gap between the imagined “productive city” and the actual capacity of Brussels to produce the kind of entrepreneurs, technologies, supplier networks, venture capital and markets that are arguably needed for the successful development of this kind of urban economy. Making space for urban industry through visions, workshops and expositions is a healthy start but not enough, even if they are translated into non-binding planning tools: they have to correspond to economic forces and logic in order to have impact.

The reflective process “What Works for Brussels?” thus aims to explore not only these symptoms, but the root causes of the almost inexistant relationship between spatial planners and economic developers. This is not an exercice of Brussels-bashing, but a necessary step to develop insights and ways to integrate economic and spatial planning in Brussels. In terms of methods and content, the reflection process has been conciously left open and flexible. Above all, we want to engage with the actors that are responsible for developing urban spaces through their ideas and their work, so it was logical to give them also a large say in the way the reflective process should be run. If useful, the discussions can be nurtured by case studies from other cities or insights from the academic literature, like we have done in this report. While the task seems heroic, note that the institutional momentum has arguably never been better: regional initiatives such as to the Plan Canal and the Regional Circular Economy Programme have in common that they all require a much tighter integration of economic and spatial considerations - an insight that is largely shared by all concerned administrations. Moreover, the recent fusion of regional organisations (such as Hub and Perspective) might give a fresh start and new ideas for economic and spatial planning in Brussels. Let us seize this momentum to identify What Works for Brussels.

Tools for planning the urban economy Tools for integrating spatial and economic planning can be divided into three types: visions, programmes and projects. The fact that an idea or initiative is represented by one of these tools, does not necessarily mean that it will have impact or result in tangible outcomes. Understanding the role and capacity of each of these instruments can therefore be useful to identify where policy is being directed and if public institutions have a balanced approach to governance.

Visions

Visions are generally strategic documents or policies addressing general areas of action and developed to bind stakeholders towards integrated action. Vision may occur at various scales and therefore the associated documents can vary in level of detail. They are typically a ‘call to action’ and built around objectives (funded or unfunded) without explaining how to achieve them. Visions offer a ‘holistic view’ of an issue and try to align it with associated challenges - a vision for mobility may be linked to air quality and public space. Furthermore, visions generally involve extensive consultation and collaboration as no single actor has the capacity to implement it alone. The Brussels ‘Strategie 2025’, for example, was designed to orient higher level investment in a range of relatively concrete action areas such as the development of the ‘Small Business Act’ or to stimulate the circular economy (the PREC) and brought together numerous ministers and regional agencies. At a larger scale, there are visions such as the Horizon Europe innovation research framework which involves extensive collaboration between the European Commission, the member states and independent experts. Even at a larger scale, the UN Sustainable Development Goals involves extensive discussions between the 181 member nations, NGOs and businesses. Visions can also be developed by non-government organisations such as the Transition Town movement.

Programmes Programmes are focused on a specific location or problem - may it be a region, neighbourhood, block or a concrete problem such as the circular economy. Programmes are often thematic and offer a ‘partial view’ of a problem or place and therefore can overlap with other programmes that perform similar activities. For example, the regional circular economy plan (PREC) has overlaps with other regional initiatives such as Good Food, the regional innovation plan, and the new plan for the management of waste and ressources (PGRD). Likewise a masterplan tool (such as the Plan d’amenagement directeur, or PAD) may have overlaps with the sustainable neighbourhood development programmes (contract du quartier), amendments to the regional plan (PPAS) or the urban renovation programmes (CRU). Programmes define concrete actions but do not always operationalise them. Therefore programmes may commit funding and investment for the implementation of specific projects.

Projects

Projects involve physical investments in a building, infrastructure or action. This may include a business centre, a new port area, an improved sewage system or a specific training program. A project must take into account the complexity of its site (planning conditions, the scale and character of adjoining buildings, access, local social conditions and so forth) and therefore require a ‘holistic view’ of the context.

Current issues in spatial and economic planning of Brussels Starting with the Employment-Environment Alliance (20112015) and the Plan Canal (2014), the regional authorities have adopted a more proactive role in the urban economy. This change is not yet fully reflected in the region’s planning practices and capacities. Brussels has a long history of adapting to the economic conditions of the day. Having started as a centre of crafts and luxury products in the late Middle Ages, the city was transformed into an important industrial production hub during the 19th century that at its peak was responsible for almost 2/3 of all jobs. After the industrial city disintegrated in the 1960s, Brussels yet again reinvented itself by expanding the command and control functions it already exercised as the capital of Belgium. Today, It is one of the richest cities in Europe in per capita terms thanks to an economy focused on services, supporting more than 90% of employment. Despite hosting some 600,000 jobs, around 17%of the region’s labour force is unemployed. Land in this highly populated 160km2 city-region is particularly scarce. As a result, higher paying land uses are pushing out less lucrative jobs through informal planning processes and political pressure with the aim of fitting the highest number of jobs possible per square metre. Furthermore, foundational work that the city may depend on - manufacturers, machine repair, food producers, construction and so forth - are being brushed aside in favour of more vote-friendly and easily manageable land uses such as housing, offices and public space. However over the last decade, attitudes within the region’s public administrations have been changing.

Part of Brussels’ half century shift from industry to the services economy has been due to attitudes in regional planning, which favoured a marketdriven approach. The Brussels region as administrative entity was born in 1989, at a time when Europe had just buried, or at least de-qualified, economic planning as a political tool. After the rise of Thatcherism in the 1980s, the definitive end of experimentation with a planned socialist economy in the Soviet Union in 1989 consolidated neoliberalism throughout Europe; “planning the economy” seemed anachronistic in a globalized economic reality, where views stressed that markets cannot and should not be subject to the shackles of state planners. In hindsight, this approach often results in some kind of market failure, such as when booms lead to supply overshoots, or when the development of public services is neglected. In light of such failures, the idea that urban planning should intervene in steering the local economy is becoming more fahionable again.

Since the decline of industry that started in the 1960’s, the region has accommodated the services sector based market forces (or ‘strong urban functions’, as urbanists call them). In Brussels, this chiefly included allowing European institutions to appropriate the residential neighbourhoods around Schuman and Place Luxembourg, the areas around the north and south train stations to be replaced with office towers for Belgian-based headquarters, banks to spread across entire blocks and so forth. This form of development has inflicted significant anxiety on the local inhabitants and gained the infamous title ‘Brusselisation’. Moreover, the production of office space overshot in the boom of the late 1990s so that Brussels is now witness to hundreds of thousands vacant square meters of office space across the region. Since the creation of the region in 1989, there has been a tendency to keep stocks of essential resources within the region. This includes wastewater treatment, oil and gas storage, large portions of dock-side space for bulky material distribution and so forth. Over the last decade, the focus of urban interventions has concentrated on addressing the increasing demand for housing and continual degradation of the industrial sector around the canal zone. This has sparked a vast range of serious questions. What is the value of the industrial land and should industry remain in the city? What kinds of spaces are essential to support the basic functionality of the city? If productive spaces are to be retained, is it for innovation or to preserve low-skilled jobs? What is the future of urban manufacturing? Can making be mixed with other functions, such as housing or logistics? How can it support the region’s circular economy ambitions? Most significantly, what kind of role should regional authorities play in this process? Answers to many of these questions remain unresolved, making it challenging for regional agencies to act coherently or consistently. As a result, over the last decade a number of plans and projects have emerged relatively organically across various regional agencies.

Brussels: trials and tribulations in planning

Planning has always been highly politicised due to Brussels’ delicate constellation of political parties, split into Dutch and French language groups. Defining even the most simple policy involving two or more ministries can be excruciatingly slow. But learning from previous mistakes, the Brussels regional government has returned to the intention to be more actively involved in Brussels’ economic development. The first example of this emerged in form of the Employment-Environment Alliance (EEA) from 2009-2014, where several public agencies acted like “bridging organisations” creating links between the actors in the field to define “win-win” initiatives that are both job-creating and beneficial for the environment (Chevalier, Courtois, Kampelmann, & Van Vyve, 2015). The Plan Canal from 2014 is another example of a more proactive role of the regional authorities in shaping the urban economy. And

while economic strategies are highly politicised, the region’s sustainable development plan (PRDD) as well as the 2025 Strategy adopted by the regional government in 2015 express visions for economic development. Moreover, there are many local economic interventions such as the neighbourhood development contracts - ‘Contrats des Quartiers’ that have been carried out in the region since 1994 to support neighbourhood development. The regional programme for circular economy is also a very hands-on effort to steer economic development in a certain direction. But the gradual reappearance of a more proactive stance on regional economic development that is visible in initiatives has not been matched with a corresponding evolution in planning practices and capacities. The result is that economic and spatial interventions are still unconnected and even counterproductive, as data from the Contrats de Quartiers suggests (Kampelmann, Vanhollebeke & Vandergert, 2015).

Looking at the general trend of urban development in Brussels, there is little doubt that ‘business as usual’ - i.e. a relatively weak public intervention in city making - will result in further middle-class oriented residential development, with the occasional public amenity (such as a school, crèche or park). This will inevitably place greater pressure on established manufacturing companies that up until now have remained close to the city, like Travie, Stevens or Interbéton. The Upsite tower is a prime example of this trend of producing residential density in the vicinty of the canal, resulting in the new residents complaining of the noise and dust from the businesses along the canal. The Newport project proposes an exclusive marina on a former industrial site at the Biestebroek Docks and thereby represents the epitome of this phenomenon. If we think

that it is desirable that this trend goes on unabashed, there is no reason for the regional authorities to intervene. In Brussels, however, there is a sentiment that this trend is problematic and should be redirected. In 2013, for instance, the ZEMU (zone d’entreprises en milieu urbain) was created as a tool to allow cohabitation of entreprises and dwellings. This can be seen as opening the door for allowing developers to convert productive into residential spaces. But the ZEMU also ensured that at least some of the total space has to be dedicated to economic activities other than housing, thereby translating the principle that the former should not completely disappear for the benefit of the latter. In 2016, bouwmeester Kristiaan Borret reinforced the argument developed in Chemetoff’s Plan Canal (2014) that substantial parts of Brussels, and in particular those in the Canal area, should remain to some extent nonresidential. Other observers and organisations, such as Inter-Environnement Bruxelles (IEB), have expressed similar views on the matter. Academic urbanists from the VUB and ULB (such as Benoit Moritz, Nadia Casabella, Michael Ryckewaert, Geoffrey Grulois, Fabio Vanin or Jens Aerts) have contributed to this debate through an urban design perspective, including the master classes on Re:Work or Upcycle Barcelona. Independent urban design project propositions have also been developed by a collaboration of range of local organisations (AWB, Departement Omgeving, OVAM, BRAL, Perspective and numerous architects) for the Atelier PRODUCTIVE BXL (2014), the PRODUCTIVE METROPOLIS (IABR 2016) or the workshop series URBAN ECONOMY IN THE BRUSSELS METROPOLITAN AREA (2017). The idea of the “productive city” definitely strings a chord with urbanists, but it has been slow to transcend this milieu. While this is hardly news for anybody who follows urban planning debates in Brussels, it is worth remembering that most other metropolitan areas around Europe and North America have been more than happy to turn virtually all manufacturing and most logistics spaces in formerly industrial areas into cleaner and currently more profitable offices and housing. Why would a soaring post-industrial knowledge and consumer city keep these underused remnants from their industrial past? Who wants a noisy factory when you can have a calm loft with a stylish café on the ground floor? And even if a city like Brussels decided to keep non-tertiary activities within its economy, is it actually feasible for urban strategists to pick and chose what kind of urban economy will thrive in a given city?

Connecting economic and spatial planning in Brussels

For several reasons, the period until the next regional elections (in spring 2019) is an opportune moment to start answering these questions and to work towards a better connection between spatial and economic planning in Brussels. The Regional Circular Economy Plan is undergoing its midterm review, which raises questions of how it should be adjusted for the remaining two years - but also about the future of the circular economy in Brussels beyond 2020. In the circular economy programme, the region

Image: Masui (© Diogo Pires Ferreira)

is defining not only general objectives in terms of impact (to achieve certain environmental objectives and job creation), but also develops a more concrete discourse on the urban economy of the future: the goal is to “anchor the economy in Brussels to produce locally when possible, reduce travel, optimise land use and create added value for Brussels”. The Irisphere project, for instance, aims to facilitate synergies between industry players in Brussels. The region is also developing an Industrial Plan to explore how to better leverage the remaining industrial land and gain a clearer idea of the kinds of industry that it wants to promote on its territory. Furthermore, some of the former industrial development sites are now designated as ZEMU, which in practice is a mixed use development experiment, and the first examples of urban projects in these areas are now taking shape. There are numerous smaller initiatives, such as the RecyK building or the Greenbizz complex, which appear isolated from a coordinated regional economic strategy. The Brussels Employment Observatory has followed closely the impacts of the digititalisation of the Brussels economy; the topic of digital also raises other questions, such as the relationship between the programs “NextTech” and “Be Circular”. All of these programmes and projects require reflection on economic development in spatial terms. In addition to these initiatives, numerous independent research projects have emerged that either build on or criticise the region’s economic approach. In 2014 a research program series titled ‘How Brussels and its Periphery Can Find Common Benefits’ staged discussions surrounding the productive economy. The results led to a contribution in the 2016 Rotterdam Biennale of Architecture with a workshop focused on architectural studies and an exhibition at Bozar titled ‘A Good City Has Industry’. Inter-Environnement Bruxelles (IEB), an environmental focused federation of neighbourhood committees, has launched various reflections on the ZEMU planning and the general industrial conditions in Brussels. Other elements of reflection on the future of ‘Industry 4.0’ have been provided by Agoria’s “Made Different” action plan. Finally, Cities of Making, a European research program, is focusing on Brussels, London and Rotterdam to offer an insight into the future of urban manufacturing. Given this proliferation of visions (“the productive city”), programmes (alliance empli-environnement, regional circular economy programme, plan canal, perhaps an industrial plan...) and projects (Greenbizz, RecyK, Irisphere, Studio Citygate...) that are by their very nature situated between economic and spatial city-making, the time is ripe to re-examine the region’s practices and capacities in terms of economic and spatial planning.

Principles for an urban economy that work for Brussels Without a shared vision, programmes and projects can easily become disconnected. While an official shared vision may be challenging to achieve, we aimed to explore shared economic values. The first round of discussions on June 4 on “What works for Brussels” suggests that there may be a consensus on what local economic development should achieve. We have assembled the arguments in the form of five principles that we present in this chapter. These principles are our interpretation and should be seen as the basis for future discussions on “What Works for Brussels”. The idea that the economy can be planned may be reminiscent of the Soviet era rather than our 21st century liberal, globalised and market-based economies. Uncontrolled market forces can send us in an undesirable direction, even hard-baked liberal economists will admit that public intervention in the market is fundamental to a healthy economy. Markets can generate bubbles, externalities, social exclusion, create public health issues and ultimately jeopardise the foundations of future economic development that end up being paid for in quality of life. Likewise, lack of public intervention is increasingly being treated as negligence: for example, blame for the 2008 global financial crisis is being pointed at public authorities who failed to control lending rather than banks that were simply working within the boundaries of regulation. Playing a more proactive role in shaping the urban economy implies, however, an understanding of the objectives that spatial and economic development is supposed to achieve. Unfortunately, the underlying values and assumptions, and even the objectives of economic development themselves, are often not clearly stated. The debates on the “productive city” have, for instance, spent more energy on exploring the architectural or urbanistic opportunities to achieve functional mix in the canal area, than on explaining why and how the “productive city” would actually contribute to making the city better place for its inhabitants. We have therefore decided to explore the objectives and overriding principles of spatial and economic development before discussing the means of achieving them. These principles, however, are only useful if they are confronted to a kind of “Realökonomie”, that the actual real-world conditions in which they could be applied. The idea is to go into the nitty-gritty of operationalisation and implementation of urban policies with a common terminology and hopefully shared understanding of where we would like the urban economy to go.

Indigenous economy The first principle stipulates that the most relevant point of departure is found in the city’s local DNA. What are the skills, knowledge and dynamics available in Brussels and that local economic development can be built on? Which are the companies that should be in Brussels because they’re an integral part of the urban fabric, built out of the existing transport and productive infrastructure, linked to our public institutions and research agencies and, last but not least, the local labour force? Firstly, a clearer definition of “city-oriented” companies is needed. This definition would include a series of criteria that could be used to designate the occupants of productive land by favouring or curating certain activities to take advantage of the finite amount of suitable space. This requires the definition of new criteria that are not restricted to classic indicators such as growth sectors and employment rates. Brussels was once a centre of metals-based manufacturing and still contains both companies using sophisticated technology (Audi and Sabca) and less technologically complex work (such as the second-hand car trade). It is home to one of Europe’s only urban abattoirs and a range of other higher-value food producers (such as chocolate and beer). Furthermore, links to construction, pharmaceuticals and chemicals are well established. While some of these businesses are not necessarily those that are compatible with the future economy of Brussels, economic planning could focus on activating and evolving the available skills and knowledge.

Developing from what is already there Some of the industrial space in Brussels has adapted to the manufacturing decline of the 1970s and 1980s. The Heyvaert area has developed as a thriving hub for trade in used cars and car parts. Small-scale wholesale activities have clustered Masui. Hundreds of small construction companies use rough, industrial real estate to carry out their business. There is a compelling case for starting from these existing premises when developing local economies rather than trying to push them out to create a clean slate for some other activity. Firstly, it is difficult to replace the incumbent jobs in other parts of the economy. Destroying the space for existing businesses can also destroy their jobs, especially when workers do not have the credentials or competences that are sought after in the service sector that dominates the metropolitan economy. But the value of the indigenous economy is not restricted to the status quo. A second argument why it should be treated with care is the observation that new work often develops from old work. Rather than appearing out of nowhere, new products and services often branch out from existing activities, for instance by bringing together two ideas that have been around but never been combined (such as combining a café and an automatic laundry, which have both been around for ages, into a “wasbar”). Case study: RDM Rotterdam RDM is a training space in one of Rotterdam’s former ship-building sites. With traditional maritime jobs changing rapidly in the end of the 20th century, much of the demand for low skilled labour had dried up, including traditional maritime labour skills. In contrast, certain technical jobs remained and demand has only increased as the Netherlands has positioned its maritime sector towards IT and engineering based innovation. TU Delft, located some 15 kilometers from Rotterdam, was producing engineers who needed technicians to prototype and develop their designs. RDM thus filled this gap. The 12,000m2 industrial warehouse is shared between a very handson technical college and a space for start-ups and SMEs, allowing students and businesses to have access to skills and technology that builds on Rotterdam’s indigenous economy: the harbour. www.rdmrotterdam.nl

Leading urban economists think that the Next Economy will be increasingly about such combination of old and new (Katz and Bradley, Metropolitan Revolution). The creation of new work from old is perfectly illustrated by Nearly New Offices (NNOF), an innovative circular business around reclaimed office furniture that evolved out of a conventional moving company (see the AWB atelier Productive BXL). Killing existing activities on the idea that they are currently not innovating fails to see their potential for creating new and valuable work in the future. In short, rather than seeing the indigenous economy as an obstacle for economic development, it should be seen as an important asset - maybe even the most valuable asset for coming up with entirely new work rather than just emulating what is being done in other cities.

Needs-based economy A vast range of businesses offer essential support for the city. These businesses could include food processing, repair, basic logistics, packaging and materials processing, construction and so forth. Needs-based economic activity is often well integrated into urban areas as clients and workers need to easily access businesses or workplaces. Companies may be located under train lines, in old factories, on the ground floor of apartment blocks - essentially anywhere that is affordable and accessible. If left to the unregulated market, these businesses would not survive as cheap and versatile spaces become too expensive. As rents increase due to the very attractiveness of the city, economic activities that cater only to local needs do not have the “economies of scale” to compete with otehr functions that exploit the surpluses of the globalised urban economy. Another factor that pushes out the needs-based economy is that new neighbours in gentrified neighbourhoods complain about noise, trucks or dust. While such reactions are understandable, the consequences of crowding out companies that fulfill local needs can be devastating for the city at large: it gets more complicated and costly to “get things done” and the urban economy overspecialises in the services sector. Rarely are such needs-based businesses protected by unions or speak with a common voice with planning authorities.

Providing goods and services that are useful for the local population. Saying that the urban economy should be “needs-based” is a clear statement about the overriding purpose of the local economy. This principle states that development is not an end in itself, but a means to provide goods and services that are useful for the local population. A really successful local economy is one that solves practical problems of urban life, such as congestion and pollution, the provision of healthy and accessible food, decent housing, clean streets, waste management, repairing broken equiment used in local companies and households and so on. An economy that focuses on providing goods and services that cater to the basic needs of the local population has been coined a “foundational economy”, and activist economists in the United Kingdom have made efforts to define which types of activities should be regarded as foundational. This perspective also allows to distinguish between “needs” and “demand”, for instance in the context of housing. As the CPRE has pointed out in its assessment of planning processes in the UK, new housing often responds to housing demand - i.e. the ability and willingness to pay by solvable clients - but not necessarily to housing needs of the existing population.in terms of types and locations of new buildings (CPRE 2018 - “Needless demand”).

Case study: Ahooga (Brussels) Despite being the capital of Europe, the city suffers terribly from poor air quality related to vehicle emissions. While biking is an evident alternative, the city also has numerous hills and is is notorious for bike theft. A folding electric bike is an evident solution, yet until recently there were few reliable options. Ahooga is a Brussels based start-up that launched in 2015 and brands itself in ‘dissolving obstacles for happy cities’. The electric bike is not only extremely compact, but light, robust and stylish. The bike is only partially produced in Brussels however the management is looking at ways to bring the production closer to home. While Ahooga have been largely financed through private capital, the role of public services in supporting and promoting this company should not be ignored. www.ahooga.bike

In the context of Brussels, it can be argued that a new marina in Anderlecht might indeed respond to a demand from the housing market, but not necessarily to a housing need of the local population. Likewise, a vehicle factory producing cars that are not sold on the local market, that are not developed by local engineers and where workers are not local, may also not be considered essential to a needs-based economy. The content of the foundational economy is likely to differ from one city to another as the needs of the local population are not the same everywhere. But to the extent that urbanites share many practical problems, focusing on solving the needs of the local population can also create new work that can then be exported to other cities.

Risk-taking economy Risk is a serious aspect of development and progress - to push ideas beyond imagination and into reality. Individual entrepreneurship can be of great benefit to the city in terms of possible tax revenues and the development of local skills or expertise. Risk-taking can be a selfperpetuating culture where risks become higher and the gains become larger, encouraging new entrepreneurs to bounce ideas and innovation off each other. By virtue of the fact that Brussels is home to some 4/10 Belgian start-ups, there must be good reasons why the city is attractive to new businesses. However this type of buzzing entrepreneurship is not evident and one would be forgiven in thinking that Brussels merely revolves around public services and bureaucracy. Risk-taking does not happen in a vacuum. Businesses and start-ups will excel based on the calculated support or gains of their project succeeding as loss can mean ending with nothing.

Creating spaces for experimentation, improvisation, innovation. A local economy does not thrive from replicating ad infinitum existing ways of doing things. In a highly competitive marketplace, cities, are increasingly positioning themselves to offer ideal conditions for new businesses to grow and prosper in order to allow their own businesses to stay and grow but also to attract others to come. As technology and markets change, every city has to learn to evolve and to adapt in order to stay prosperous.

Case study: Microlab (Eindhoven) Microlab is the temporary activation of a 12 storey office building on the former Philips factory site, now Eindhoven’s Strijp-S development precinct. The former administration building is home to a vast range of start-ups, SMEs and community organisations that are rarely located within the same building. Their slogan sums up the spirit of the building; “We are makers, creators and innovators”. Each floor has a specific theme and function. The ground floor contains music rehearsal rooms, a small satellite of the Eindhoven library and space for makers and fixers with loud and dusty machines. Other floors contain office open and closed spaces and include a range of shared spaces such as meeting rooms, eating areas and events spaces, each with its own look at feel. The curation of the tenants by the management team and the Friday drinks events means that this building does not feel like a generic office block while encouraging tenants to get to know each other. The variety of spaces also allow tenants to move or change based on their needs, meaning that a foot in the door can cost as little as €50 per month. The building is managed by a young team, with an eight year contract to allow for necessary capital investment. www.microlab.nl

But developing new work is an inherently risky undertaking: for every successful new business, several might fail. It follows that a thriving city should create the conditions for entrepreneurs to take risks. This may involve the physical spaces (physical spaces, urban contexts etc) that allow for experimentation and improvisation that are necessary for inventing new lines of work - these spaces may need to be rough, cheap and malleable. It may involve financial conditions (starting capital, loans or subsidies) to support new ventures and re-invention of existing ones. It may involve access to intellectual and technical knowledge to help boost new businesses. Finally, it requires a local environment where such ideas can be applied, tested or sold. One of the areas that is still in a stage of experimentation is circular economy - which explains why its initiatives are still small, improvised and risky.

Circular economy The last decadeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rise of interest in the circular economy has been welcomed by a number of European cities and regions that have decided to focus on the vast volumes of resources that flow within and through cities. Curbing waste and creating value in processed but unwanted materials is one dimension. Another is about creating new forms of work, focused more on providing services rather than on producing materials. Fostering the circular economy can also help to become more resilient to external shocks, such as Chinaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s refusal to import a range of waste in 2017 that resulted in serious issues for the recycling industry. Until now, a number of cities have attempted to manage the circular economy by kickstarting local entrepreneurship. Cities and regions have a serious role to play as facilitators and negotiators as change can be very slow and subsidies or stimulus can be needed. While new technology is appearing on the market - small-scale plastic recycling for 3D printing for example - there remains a need to connect skills, technology and space. However those cities that do manage to find socio-economic and technical solutions for the circular economy may not only deal with their own waste streams but also create technology, knowledge and social innovations that can be exported to other cities.

Reducing waste by creating resource loops All current urban areas rely on extensive supply chains across the globe, that are simply invisible to city dwellers. This can range from simple building material and food to complex technology. For example, meat eaten in Brussels may come from a farm in the Netherlands, fed by soya from Brazil, which is grown on African-mined phosphorus. The combination of depleting resources and increasing demand from a growing global population is an inevitable trend that exposes cities to rising prices and increased global competition for resources. Circular economy has emerged as an attractive mind-set to address these issues. Depending on the flow, it can be viable to circulate flows at local, regional, national or even international scale. Solving the practical problems of moving from linear to circular economies is therefore an area of innovation that can create new work. But it is naive to think that market forces alone will suffice to push the development of circular economy; both resource depletion and waste generation create externalities that are not included in prices. This means that market transactions alone do not take them into account. If the economy should become more circular, it will require market forces to be complemented with bold public action that punishes linear and encourages circular flows. This could include product bans, material bans, taxes on toxic or non-recyclable products, support of re-using certain materials etc. A city that takes such actions is likely to develop companies that can create new work that is useful for solving its own and other citiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; environmental problems. Public subsidies offered to social businesses for sorting or managing waste may also have a greater benefit through reduced health-care costs and waste while providing alternative jobs that are not available in the services sector. Case study: The Horses of Schaerbeek (Brussels) While relatively poorly known to outsiders, the municipality of Schaerbeek (Brussels), has employed the services of three horses to collect organic waste. While seemingly a modest gesture, the municipality found that the horses not only reduced infrastructure costs, but through curiosity also encouraged local residents to become more interested in sorting organic waste. This has meant that organic waste has been saved from incineration along with general waste collection in Brussels and can be re-injected back into the agricultural system.

Cooperative economy There is a consensus amongst numerous regional actors (public and private) that collaboration is essential to urban development. Cooperation could refer to the sharing of information, the existence of platforms for exchange, an atmosphere of collaboration and the actual participation process itself. Cooperation is neither evident or natural for businesses that are surviving day by day and therefore can be a challenge to find the time and energy to invest in the vital relationships that allow for healthy collaboration to flourish. Likewise larger businesses with serious intellectual property issues (such as Audi and Sabca) are highly un-cooperative with other local businesses. For businesses that have both the time and energy to cooperate, there can be a lack of a moderator or facilitator that is required to create a foundation for cooperative exchange.

Working across silos, specialisations, communities It is easy to overlook the city’s core economic function: the intentional and unexpected exchange of ideas that result in new products and services. Despite physical proximity, there are many barriers within a city that get in the way of developing new ideas including language, wealth (distance between higher and lower class), organisational structures (creation of silos), geography (physical barriers) and quality of shared spaces. The polarisation of Brussels seriously hampers collaboration. On the one hand, the European institutions operate in a more or less detached enclave; on the other hand, a considerable share of the population in the city’s poorer neighbourhood is excluded from the city’s labour market. Given that new ideas are often combinations of existing knowledge or practices from different walks of life, a city that fails to connect potential entrepreneurs from different backgrounds makes it challenging for new products and services to emerge. Cooperation can be much cheaper and effective than unnecessary competition. An important part of the cooperative economy is about the matchmaking platforms, the facilitation processes, the moderators and the spaces that encourage cooperation. Cities that have a strong cooperative economy are likely to be those that support facilitators to help guide cooperation. Proponents of the cooperative economy should strive to create bridges across specialisations, socioeconomic groups, silos, administrations and so forth… Case study: Pakhuis de Zwijger (Amsterdam) Located in a remodelled warehouse on the shores of Amsterdam’s River Ijsel, the Pakhuis de Zwijger is a unique platform for independent thought, debate and insight into the future of urban life. The building is financed by a range of both public and private funds and offers three events spaces, a public café and coworking spaces. Content is based on three themes: the creative industry, the city and global trends. A full program of free events across the year, based on a ‘pay as you like’ policy and live streaming of their events makes them not only extremely accessible but also places an accent on Amsterdam’s role as a centre for innovation. www.dezwijger.nl

How do ongoing initiatives relate to the proposed development principles? The first event on “What Works for Brussels” in June 2018 was structured around five regional dynamics with both economic and spatial relevance. The invited speakers focused on themes such as the productive city, urban manufacturing, urban industry, urban metabolism, circular economy and the general question of job diversity. In this chapter, we present these different initiatives by analysing how they relate to the urban economy principles that we introduced in the previous chapter. Importantly, it should be noted that this analysis reflects our interpretation and not necessarily the viewpoint of the speakers themselves.

Economic mix in the canal area - BMA The Brussels Bouwmeester (BMA) is actively involved in moderating mixeduse projects, particular along the canal zone. In their talk on “What Works for Brussels”, Kristiaan Borret and Julie Collet highlighted the importance of maintaining productive activities in Brussels as a service for the society and as a source of employment. In addition, the presentation referred to the importance of providing space for the future economy and to integrate it into the reflection of a wider territorial planning. For them, it seems that the question is not about how to integrate the economy in the city (already a series of projects exist in this direction). What is really missing is a clear common vision: for which kind of economy we would sacrifice public space and housing? A circular economy? An economy that is “city-oriented”? The BMA’s objective is not to define the companies to implement but criteria to select the economic activities that we want to host in the city. Indigenous. The city should protect and encourage the region’s productive competencies. New development should include economic activities in order to protect and encourage employment, resilience and urban services (repair sector, etc). This should likewise be based on good architecture that is well embedded into its context. The relevance of an architectural framework is a way to incorporate businesses in the process of urban renewal.

Needs-based. It is important to establish clear value criteria to select the kind of economic activities based on value to sacrifice suitable space for housing developments. The productive activities should/could be treated

as a service provided to the city. It is important not to overlook a future economy that is ecological, local, fair and easy to integrate in the urban fabric. Risk-taking. Research by design has proven to be an important tool to follow up development processes and encourage an open debate in decision making regarding strategic projects, particularly to open up constructive discussions with developers. Competitions are also a tool to guarantee quality in strategic projects - focused on developers and architects. We should not underestimate the pioneering position of Brussels in this regard. Brussels is considered to be ahead of other cities demonstrating the importance of productive spaces and innovative planning tools (such as the Plan Canal). Cooperative. There is a serious mismatch between companies, developers and space which is considered a major blocking element. There are companies looking for space in the city but cannot find anything that meets their needs. They’re also concerned that once built, there will be no demand, willing to pay the market rates for the spaces. Traditional developers do not have a business model to develop productive or mixed urban typologies and therefore a trapped by business as usual. Their business models are mainly focussed on traditional housing or office markets. Timing is everything: it is essential to remember that there’s a distinction between the time needed to develop architecture to feed an existing market and the time for an urban economy to develop a new market.

Plan Industriel - IGEAT/ULB The IGEAT team presented the role of the Industrial Plan for Brussels, describing the existing situation of industry in Brussels and the current challenges and the future trends. The ‘Plan Industriel’ was launched mid-2017 and were due to present their final results in September 2018. The study aimed to be a road map with concrete measures as well as the principles for monitoring that will allow for the development of an industrial plan by the Ministry of economy (Didier Gosuin). Indigenous. Brussels has seen almost six decades of industrial decline and is now one of the least industrialised cities in Europe. Between 20082014 the 5 industrial sectors employed about 15% of the population. In general, the industrial sector is in decline in terms of employment with the exception of the construction sector which is the only economic sector to largely employ a low-skilled workforce. In other words, the inidgenous base for industrial development is already small and declining further.

Needs-based. Brussels industries are currently very poorly integrated and not very dependent on other Brussels companies. Industrial businesses often act in isolation. Industry 4.0 is proclaimed to be the future economy and would reposition industry in Europe, allowing the relocation and integration of industry to urban centers; this, however, does not mean that such new types of industries produce for their local market.

Circular & cooperative. Industry is currently very poorly defined. The definition of industry must widen up to include traditional industry, circular economy, construction, creative and digital sectors in order to diversify the ways in which economic actors can cooperate. The outcome of the study will be a global action plan that will help give a direction to different economic and urban actors and facilitate cooperation between them.

‘Critique de la politique d’aménagement du territoire et de la ville productive’ - IEB Inter-environnement Bruxelles (IEB) is a francophone, Brussels-focused platform concerned particularly with social equity and environmental issues. IEB focused on the progressive transformation of productive land into market-driven housing developments with a critical perspective on regional policies such as the ZEMU based on the Biestebroeck PPAS case study (a PPAS is a local rezoning plan, in this case used for mixed use). The research question of a recent IEB study carried out by Alexandre Orban and Claire Schohier can be summarised as follows: what policies for productive activities should be implemented in the Brussels Region to meet the socioeconomic needs of the city and its inhabitants? IEB addressed the demand for low-skilled jobs for socio-economically disadvantaged populations; therefore, the debate about the potential for the industrial sectors remains oriented towards towards low-skilled jobs. Indigenous. IEB defends the importance of having a diverse employment base in the urban economy. The presence of the informal sector and existing ‘ethnic economies’ (for instance in the Heyvaert area that employs a large number of Central and North Africans) is stressed as relevant and valuable for the urban economy. Existing non-tertiary companies are not attracted by the “productive spaces” produced in the ZEMUs, which often take the form of commercial ground floors that are too small, too expensive, too rigid and too close to housing. Needs-based. Functional mix is advocated, while also acknowledging that this lent itself to a decrease of productive spaces in favor of housing. In the case of the Biestebroeck ZEMU, companies left the center to look elsewhere for cheaper land in the proximity of the mobility (road-based) infrastructure. It is hard for developers to launch into new opportunities; they are trapped in ‘business as usual’. IEB suggests that the Region has fallen into the real estate developers’ logic, contrary to what the region advocates publically. By and large, existing spaces for industry should be kept. The ZEMU should be reviewed especially as regards activities related to logistics. IEB encourages the reconversion from offices to housing rather than industrial to housing and offices as is currently the case.

Risk-taking. Developers are sometimes stronger than municipal authorities, there needs to be an innovative way to manage their influence. With its sensibility for the precarious conditions of a large part of the population in the Canal area, IEB is weary of inciting potential entrepreneurs to take economic risks.

Cooperative. The case of Biestebroeck motivated IEB to conduct a series of interviews with public stakeholders to better understand the gap between the institutions’ discourse and the reality of companies on the ground (analysis of the interview conducted in 2017 are available at www.ieb. be). The break-down of these sectors in Biestebroeck could point fingers towards poorly connected businesses that did not federate their interests.

Cities of Making - (ULB, VUB, Latitude, BECI) Cities of Making is a European research project exploring the role of urban manufacturing in 21st century European cities. Brussels is one of the three case-study cities, alongside London and Rotterdam. The objective is to gain a better understand of the kinds of resources and technology, the spatial conditions and the necessary governance to support established and new forms of urban manufacturing. Recently the ‘Cities Report’ was published which sums up the initial analysis conducted in the three cities. Indigenous. While sectors are difficult to define, they form the base upon which to strengthen existing work or find ways to build new opportunities. Likewise, often traditional manufacturing has been located along water networks, which are now highly sought after for housing and recreation careful planning is necessary to integrate these. Needs-based. Despite automation, machines and artificial intelligence, some low-skilled entry level jobs are impossible to eradicate and will remain associated with manufacturing. This can offer both a stepping stone for employment for those that are not suited to the services sector. The challenge is to prove that these entry-level jobs are essential for the local economy and in many cases need to be subsidised. Both skills development and social services should be developed more intentionally. Likewise, urban manufacturing should be first and foremost addressing the needs of the local market in terms of local sales but also in terms of having quick feedback between design, development and use. Risk-taking. With 2/5th of all Belgian start-ups opening their doors in Brussels, the city should be building on its a spirit of entrepreneurship and use its relationship to the European instutions as to its benefit in linking to cutting edge European innovation. Brussels needs to find a more effective way of joining up fundamental research, R+D and businesses. Circular. Manufacturing is often taken for granted in the circular economy narative. Yet one of the most tangible draw cards for urban manufacturing is involves ‘re-manufacturing’ or short-circuit manufacturing, whereby resources that are now considered waste (like plastics or electronics) could be re-processed and re-used by forming the basic resource for producing new goods, locally. This involves activating new technology, using old materials that can be readily sourced in urban areas.

Cooperative. Currently many businesses in the sector are poorly connected amongst themselves. This makes the urban manufacturing sector highly fragmented and easily crowded out by housing development. Manufacturers need to band together in an ecosystem to survive other

development pressures in the city, where land remains a premium. The city should also be investing more effort in linking thinkers and makers. Much of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s making has concentrated along the canal, while the traditional research organisations have been located in the south-east. This geographic differentiation in Brussels helps to explain why research organisations and manufacturers have relatively poor contact. Finally, the â&#x20AC;&#x153;bridge makerâ&#x20AC;? needs to be better acknowledged and is currently largely non-existent. Indeed, an important and easily overlooked mediation or or facilitation role to create connections between a diverse range of actors by understanding business needs, identifying new projects and linking skills and knowledge.

PREC - Bruxelles Environnement The Regional Program for Circular Economy (the PREC) is structured in two axes. Firstly the sectorial axis identifies five priority activities on a vision for the horizon 2025: logistics, waste, food, commerce and construction. These sectors were chosen based on their potential for the creation of employment, their impact concerning emissions and addressing large challenges for the region of Brussels. The territorial axis seeks to build the foundations for a circular economy focusing on the development of 10 activity centres concentrated largely along the canal. Additional transversal measures will address other subjects through a legislative frameworks (identifying techno-administrative barriers), economic frameworks (direct economic support) and the levers for the future (innovation, training and employment). Indigenous. It is important to build on economic activity centres to reinforce the existing productive function of the canal zone (territorial axis). Needs-based. The PREC gives priority to develop the five economic sectors (sectorial axis) that have been considered most important in terms of circular economy for the region. In addition, suitable training is required to develop a potential sustainable businesses workforce for both existing and new businesses and services emerging from the PREC. Risk-taking. It is important to establish a platform to identify any technical-administrative barriers (legislative framework) affecting or affected by the PREC. Economic support is currently being offered to identify and give support to companies to innovate, promote pilot projects (Be Circular) and provide training (222 companies supported). Such public support allows to mitigate the risks of experimenting with new circular business ideas. Results will not materialise immediately.

Cooperative. It remains essential to understand how actors work together for the implementation of the objectives for a circular economy and implement relevant governance structures. It is important to better articulate and interrelate the regional circular economy policy with other initiatives such as the reflection on new urban manufacturing, the plan canal or digitalisation.

Next steps The intention of What Works for Brussels? is to create a forum in which a common understanding of economic and spatial planning issues in Brussels. We have identified three avenues for further discussion.

Identifying shared principles for a desirable urban economy. Such principles do not have to be set in stone or involve formal top-down approval. They could emerge as a common understanding of what constitutes “good” development. It may simply involve a small but actionable list of guiding principles that could draw on the five principles presented in this report: the indigenous, needs-based, risk-taking, circular and cooperative economy. Understand spatial and economic trends. Normative principles for economic and spatial development are important guideposts, but the debates should be transfused with a strong dose of “Realökonomie”. No planning can be completely future-proofed, but it can prepare for uncertainty and explore the implications of development trends. What Works for Brussels could explore urban trends that are relevant for the intersection between economic and spatial planning.

Develop the right tools for the job. Interventions can occur at different scales, resulting in different outcomes. We have categorised three types of tools which planners have at their disposal: visions, programmes and projects. All three are important to ensure longer-term results. But the reflection should also take into view the wider governance landscape that produces economic and spatial planning.

References Architecture Workroom Brussels. (2017). Comment Bruxelles et la périphérie peuvent-elles partagers des gains communs? Atelier Productive Bxl. Brussels. Bentham, J., Bowman, A., de la Cuesta, M., Engelen, E., Ertürk, I., Folkman, P., . . . Leaver, A. (2013). Manifesto for the foundational economy. Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change, Manchester, http://www. cresc. ac. uk/ sites/default/files/Manifesto% 20for% 20the% 20Foundational, 20. Borret, K. (2016). Note d’orientation 2015-2019. Brussels: BMA. Casabella, N., & Bouillot, E. (2018). Towards a fair transition in Heyvaert (Brussels): ideas for urban renewal from a circular economy perspective. In G. Grulois, M. C. Tosi & C. Crosas (Eds.), Designing territorial metabolism: Barcelona, Brussels and Venice. Berlin: Jovis. Chemetoff, A., & Maillard, S. (2014). Plan Canal - Kanalplan. In R. d. Bruxelles-Capitale (Ed.). Gentilly: Les éditions du bureau des paysages. Cornejo Escudero, R. (2018). Pourquoi Masui? (Dé-) location des activités économiques (Travail de fin d'études Master architecture), Brussels. Hill. A., Warden. J., Hausleitner, B., Croxford, B., Dellot, B., Domenech, T., Meyer, H., Sans, V., Orban, A. & Vanin, F., (2018) Cities Report, Cities of Making interim report. www.citiesofmaking.com Katz, B., & Bradley, J. (2013). The metropolitan revolution: How cities and metros are fixing our broken politics and fragile economy: Brookings Institution Press. Kampelmann, S., Van Hollebeke, S., & Vandergert, P. (2016). Stuck in the middle with you: The role of bridging organisations in urban regeneration. Ecological Economics, 129, 82-93. Orban, A. & Scohier C. (2018). Évolution des activités productives en Région de Bruxelles-Capitale et besoins des habitants : les discours institutionnels à l’épreuve des faits. Inter-Environnement Bruxelles. Tihon, M., Lennert, M., & Van Hamme, G. (2018). Élaboration du Plan Industriel Bruxellois. Paper presented at the What Works in Brussels? Présentation durant la journée de réflexion organisée par la Chaire en économie circulaire et métabolisme urbain de l'ULB, Brussels. Vandermotten, C. (2015). L’industrie bruxelloise : deux siècles et demi d’évolution. Patrimoines, N°015-016. Bruxelles

circularmetabolism.com