Real Estate Architecture Interviews

interviews Real estate Architecture

Table of contents List of interviews Frederik Serroen, BMA

p.

4

Oana Bogdan, Bogdan & Van Broeck

p.

7

Sven Sterken

p.

12

Sven Lenaerts, up4north

p.

14

Maarten Gielen, Rotor

p.

16

Marc Dubois

p.

18

Gerben Van den Abbeele

p.

20

actors of Schaerbeek’s comings and goings.

p.

25

Dieter Leyssen, 51N4e

p.

27

Loik Eyers

p.

32

Luce Beeckmans

p.

39

Vacant Spaces

p.

43

Carlo Menon

p.

45

Interview with Frederik Serroen, BMA office 28/04/2020 Roope Piipponen, KU Leuven Master of Architecture The North Station area has faced criticism from different sources in the past. To you, what are the main issues with the area? How will these issues addressed in the future plans?

The North Area is a unique neighbourhood for Brussels due to its high-rise character and this provokes negative side-effects, especially because it’s mono-functional, the ground-floors are not activated and there is no residential component visible at first sight, though there are quite a lot of people living in the area. This creates a “ghost-town”, especially if you add the fact that Maximillian Park is historically an arrival spot for refugees, so you get this underused public space where in some hidden spots people living in precarious conditions.

At the same time, the NQ has oversized public space. If you are on the 23rd floor, overlooking Brussels, it’s a very unique and interesting urban context that we should exploit more for public uses. Now it’s mainly offices housed in those towers but it would be nice if you imagine a compact, dense city in this kind of morphology that is there. It’s about trying to mediate the more negative mono-functional side with the public spaces not being activated, with new programs that can fit perfectly in this typology, but for that we need facilitators from both the private and public sectors to set up these hybrid programmes and hybrid forums. The ZIN project is aiming in that direction, but it is just one domino block, we should try to have move of them. The master plan for the Northern Area is not there yet, but there is a narrative being repeated of this “mixity”. So if we have a couple of iconic projects and we are a bit tougher on refusing developers continuing business as usual, bit by bit, we will get there.

-The Zin Project will be built in the area. What are the other projects to revitalize the area?

There are definitely other projects. One is the CCN building, with the huge atrium, built attached to the North Station, where the metro entrances are. The public administration offices used to be there. That is being sold to a consortium of three developers, Atenor, Axa and AG Real Estate.

They’ve now done an architectural competition to find a concept for a redevelopment scheme with several components; obviously the bus and tram station needs to be operated. On top of that they are considering a mixed use development with officers, houses and some public amenities. That’s a crucial project for the re-dynamization of the Northen Area.

There area lot of other, more “mainstream” projects, like the Silver Tower or the Mobius development, which is basically duplicating the Manhattan Plan, building mono functional towers without real activation of the ground floor. It’s interesting to see if we are in a paradigm that is changing or if it is still business as usual. From a developers’ point of view, they are playing the best of both worlds; when needed, they are adapting their scheme and aiming for more multi-functional mixed developments, but at the same time they are capable of selling a standard office tower with standard floors and nothing special, they will do it as well. In the end the area will develop in a more mixed way, but now not all actors are aligned with this. If there is an opportunity to host Allianz or Samsung in a mono-functional tower, there are still operators going for it, as the public sector is not really capable of imposing another way of development. Step-by-step the region is developing a vision, they are imposing taxation schemes, permits or by regulation plans.

-Does the train company own a lot of properties around the North Station? If the company wanted to do something similar as at the South Station trade-deal, would there be any conditions? Would there be any requirements for housing?

The two are not really comparable because the railway company does not own a lot of land in the North Quarter. I don’t know if they own something other than the station building. There is no such deal to be made so that they could finance their new real estate development.

If you consider what is happening in the south station, it’s a mega deal. I am sceptical that the public land of the railway station is now being sold to a private developer and I wonder if it would not have been better to keep the land public. In my opinion, that would allow for more affordable housing in the long-term, now it’s being sold and now we will need to try to arrange that the private developer is building in a segment that would allow people in need of housing to manage to live there. Of course this private developer has their profit margins as well.

In itself its an interesting deal and obviously the railway company was in need of money to finance their project, but at the same time I believe that the more you can keep public land in the hands of the public sector, the more you can have a steering role on the housing market. In Brussels there is definitely a need for more affordable housing. In the private rental market there is a tough competition, with low quality housing being rented for way too much money.

To make the comparison with the north quarter, the land was sold in the wake of the Manhattan Project. So it was also a private company who was in the driver’s seat for the development of the north quarter, so all buildings you see along the Albert II Avenue are all in the hands of about 7-8 bigger private property owners. They put themselves together to form up4north, in order to lobby for their interests. At the time they had a lot of offices vacant, so they have been trying to take action to rebrand the area through temporary use etc. They have done quite well with it, but it’s not easy to find an equilibrium to make sure that public and private work hand-in-hand.

It’s based on trust and those public-private partnerships are always a bit tricky. It’s not clear who is driving, who is helping out who.

The NQ to me is really this place where the best and the worst are happening at the same time. You see this kind of co-creation platforms where public and private, and citizens meet, and there are transition agendas being discussed and at the same time you have the usual suspects that are trying to make their deals behind the scenes to make some mainstream real-estate. It’s important to understand that the two dynamics; old school and new school are competing to rule the area, so to speak.

-One of the concerns of people with the South Station area is time. New projects of course take time, and real estate speculation sometimes adds time to an area’s vacancy and make using the area difficult. Are there any efforts to address this issue? Could you imagine anyway to do projects in a way that would allow for temporary use, or that would allow life to continue more normally around construction projects?

It’s definitely problematic, with all these new projects underway, the new OMA project for example. I don’t know how long it will take to build. If you look at all the sites that are part of the mega-deal of the railway company, there are many plots. Probably those plots will not be developed at one time so that the developer doesn’t put too many offices or houses on the market at the same time. Now there is the temporary use of the Tri-Postal, on the ground floor in the building on Avenue Fonsny. For me it’s symptomatic of the “too-little-too-late” approach. The building has been empty for twenty years and now they are letting an association use one floor for 1.5-2 years, if you consider the whole building... It’s good, and symbolically it’s important that it has been done, but if you find a “meanwhile-use programme”, it could be quite powerful.

Today, nobody is really looking a the timeline and saying, here we probably will have a certain amount of years without a certain programme, same with this plot. What could we do to test or attract certain functions, what money can be made available for that. I hope we are in a paradigm change where this kind of transition urbanism is going to be put in practice more and more. Again, for people speculating on land value, it doesn't really matter that nothing is being done there because it’s bringing in money anyway over time. As the public sector, we will need to lead by example, we will need to also reward operators that are going in that direction and be tougher on landowners just siting on their property and leaving it abandoned. It’s not very evident.

If you sell your land to someone, you are allowing that new private owner [to do] what they want with the land. I don’t think in the contract there were strong conditions imposed by the public sector saying that you are not allowed to leave it empty, or we want you to use those spaces in the meantime. In order for this to change, the public sector will need to step up and be more radical and use whatever is in their power to ensure that the private sector follows this paradigm. At the same time there are already private agents being more “correct” than the private sector. That’s where I think the change can happen from.

• • • • • •

• • •

•

• •

• •

• •

• • • •

• • • • • •

•

• • •

Interview Summary with Sven Lenaerts Sven Lenaerts is the project manager of Up4North and part of LabNorth. His role is to stimulate collaborations and projects with different actors in the NQ in order to create a new identity and hybrid district.

On Role and Outcomes What was the goal and intention of temporary occupation?

The idea behind temporary occupation was attracting new users and finding a new business model. They wanted to attract new users and businesses to the area, and he points out a few users/functions that are needed and could stay in the district, this includes academic functions and cultural functions.

102

To make that happen the second goal of LabNorth was also finding a balance and a new business model that would allow them to stay in a neighbourhood.

This meaning Lab North encourages private owners and public authorities to rethink their models and rents to be more inclusive. The two key words are coalitions and prototyping, meaning working together and testing what is appropriate and needed in the neighbourhood.

What lessons from temporary occupation were learnt and taken forward to the ZIN project?

At the ZIN project, unfortunately none of the temporary users will reside, but they are working to find a place for them in the neighbourhood.

Now they have all moved to the CCN building. The temporary users became part of LabNorth coalition, in its next phase, LabNorth 2.0. This is where we will see this further collaboration of all the stakeholders.

At the ZIN project the lessons they carry forward, are the openness of the ground floor, sustainability aspect-greenhouse, cultural elements, vertical integration and mix-use, local businesses, sport facilities, mobility, as a few examples.

“...temporary users became part of LabNorth 2.0.”

On Collaboration and Proccess How has public participation played a role in the projects and have they been included in the process?

The temporary users were invited to make participative projects. So, they had about 30 projects. An example was an organisation has closed the streets and created a pool for a day, where in the evening families came with children.

The North Café was the first place initiated by LabNorth to start the transformation. It was a place on ground floor of the WTC, that opened to the public. As part of public participation, and specifically in organising initiatives, they gave free coffee for an idea of what can be done in the neighbourhood. But he agrees there could have been more and more ways to evaluate the interventions.

He says their projects were based on a well analysed studies, including workshops and interviews, but a lot of the initiative came out from LabNorth itself.

He mentions how the furniture can be moved around to see where it is needed, but this still has not taken place.

“...there could have been more ways to evaluate the interventions.”

Is LabNorth collaborating with any social organisations, considering the less advantaged and the migrants?

He mentioned that they do collaborate with social organisations but did not mention which ones apart from a general idea that different associations will need to aid in transformations in different sectors.

But they do not directly work with LabNorth it seems.

He gave an example of energy transformation and associations that would support residents/locals in the changes in this respect. Referring to financial support and other aid.

He mentioned that the temporary users at WTC have made projects to help trans migrants and build ‘ateliers’ but the immigration question is more a political debate he couldn’t do much about at his position and this level. They themselves included them in the process as well through participation in activities like urban gardening and workshops.

How has the relationship of public and private sector changed through this development process and what are the respective roles?

Up4North initiated the transformation and triggered public authorities to act. Lab North was a start of the communication between public and private sector. They are happy to have a seat at the table at the public authorities’ debates, but they are the ones making the rules and getting all other organisations aligned to the same goal.

This is an important point he made a few times, that it is also the public authorities that have influence and power to make guidelines and rules for private developments and the neighbourhood development.

For example, the CCN building is where public authorities have not grasped the moment where they could have triggered change, and instead sold it to a private owner. The important role of public authorities is to insist on certain elements when selling the buildings to achieve this change for diverse district.

“...public authorities have influence and power to make rules for private developments.”

On ZIN and the Future: How does the public interest fit the search for profit of the real estate company?

He pointed out that the role of LabNorth is to defend the public interest, but they also consider profitability for the owners. They need to find the balance between what the public needs and what will bring profit. He said we cannot be naive that what the public wants is the best solution and that companies still need to make profit. Platform North is the closest link to this.

“...cannot be naive that what the public wants is the best solution.”

For the future they try to incorporate all that the neighbourhood needs into the district and through the testing they can have an idea of what are the most appropriate uses are and where. For the ZIN project, they met with inhabitants and shop owners to see which stores are needed and wanted, rather than having another McDonalds, considering public and district needs, rather than simply profit.

However, he pointed out in an example of the digital age that still private owners are important and the big companies as stake holders, such as Proximus, might support them in future developments and transitions in the Northern district, attracting new users and changing the character of the area.

What will be the new identity of the North district? What transitions will the North District experience?

The experimental identity is about the test site and making the district not fall into the monofunctional character. He mentions that the idea is to have max 50% offices and the rest to be variety. The north district has a history of transitions, and now they are taking on 5 different transitions: the mobility transition, energy transition, multifunction transition, ground floor transition and the future ‘talent’. The future talent referring to the lifestyle changes and technological advancements and progress that needs to be adapted to. He mentions that a part of the district might also become the digital identity, as they have big companies and companies which have all the talent. They want to see in the future if young people would want to work there and attract these types of companies.

He mentions in these transitions, the WTC is the first to integrate housing. The next buildings for development are the CCN and the third can be Ferraris, owned by Flemish community, which if it is sold by the region can become another example of a mixed-use building.

103

MAARTEN GIELEN

Interview with Maarten Gielen, Rotor

by Lisa Eisen The involvement of Rotor in the dismantling of WTC and the techniques of dismantling: What are the limitations or challenges of deconstructing a building that was not designed for future disassembly?

Open plan towers were designed with multi functionality in mind. All the partitions can be removed, facades can easily be removed and so on. This initial idea of re-programmation has not been followed, it would be interesting to know why.

More conceptually, it shows that designers can keep open potentialities, but when building owners don‘t make use of these potentials… Well, then they don‘t. It depresses me. I’m sure there will be plenty of buildings designed for disassembly that will still be bulldozed a few decades from now. Concrete is dirt cheap.

ZIN gets government money for being exemplary in terms of circularity, yet it is the single biggest demolition project in Brussels since at least 15 years.

100.000t of building waste (the whole of Brussels produces ‘just’ 700.000t annually). So you see, concrete is cheap but talk is even cheaper.

And what you think about the concept of ‚material passports‘ that was developed by Thomas Rau?

Looking at the limitations: Does reuse limit the creative freedom of designers and is there a specific style attached to it ?

I don’t like talking about abstract ideas. Let’s be more specific: Philips, under the influence of Rau, decided to lease lights in stead of selling them to Schiphol airport.

So, just to put this in perspective, this is the same company that came up with senseo; a propriety delivery system for coffee in aluminum that allowed the company to license to coffee manufacturers.

It is by far the most polluting way of packaging coffee that has ever existed. It renders the aluminum very hard to recover, and the coffee cannot be composted. It’s pure landfill.

I have a hard time to think that all of a sudden Philips saw the (green) light. More plausible: There is a market for corporate green ’solutions’ and there is a market for pretentious single portion coffee packaging… and so it goes.

Of course it’s nice to have the technical data of materials that we come across in the buildings we dismantle. I just hope it will not be saved in some weird digital environment; we have a hard time just opening CAD-files that are 15years old. Even better would be, if the technical specs were recorded on the objects themselves.

We worked in North station, demounted some lights there that were installed in the 1950s. On the inside of these lights were writings in marker ‘balast changed in 1980’ or ‘connector replaced 1997’ and so on.. that is a building information model with a proven track record. Very good practice.

Everything else, we’ll find out in 10Y form now. I haven’t seen a BIM-model in use in a demolition yet.

Many styles: Instagram-hipster, Axel-VervoordtFengshui, Fermette-à-la-flamande, Steampunk, Shabby-chique, and so on.

Building materials are cultural products, not technical solutions. When you go buy a coat, you don’t go in with a list of insulation values and required water absorption levels. You go in with an idea of a look, then the clothing also needs to be a minimum practical for some buyers. But in that order.

Same with building materials.

Still about the northern quarter: Could adaptive reuse be a tool in order to heal the modernist Urban Trauma ?

I’ve made the suggestion before that buildings like the KBC headquarters should be listed and protected as monuments. Not because we want to encourage people to build more of them, but because nobody will build them if you know you can’t get rid of them easily afterwards. I’m not sure I understand your question.

The identity paradox based on ‚the ship of Theseus‘ by Plutarch questions whether an object that had all of its components replaced remains the same object. Transferred onto the concept of (adaptive) reuse: At what point does an ‚adaptive reuse‘ project become a new design?

What does it matter? Look at the classic brussels’ 3 piece en enfillade -; developed for bourgeoisie, they accommodate students as well these days, or families of 5. The bricks are not adapted, the use changes the architecture. You can redesign a building without moving or changing a single material. Every day a new house, if you want.

And what does that mean for the future role of architects and the need to develop something new and eternal?

New and eternal? Who aspires to that? We don’t seem to hang out with the same architects. I don’t care f or discussions about the role of architect anymore.

It’s a non-discussion. Or maybe it isn’t.

This interview is based on a written exchange of questions and answers. It is part of the Masterstudio “Welcome to Jaspers Town” in Architecture at the KU Leuven led by Gideon Boie.

Interview with Marc Dubois

CBR BUILDING

The CBR is known for its ingeniously prefabricated structure and great attention to detail and finishing, but an element which sparked my interest was the context.

Located in W-B we could describe the location as a 'hyper-reality', a desolate surroundings only suited to transport employees back and forth from home to work. This is reinforced by the 2 main roads crossing in front of the building and the nearby train station. Yet you claim that this building is a prime example for qualitative real estate architecture, don't you think the surroundings deteriorates this? Shouldn't a building such as the CBR be more inclusive and interactive with its surroundings, instead of acting as two separate entities?

The CBR buildings stands as an autonomous object between the trees. It is not a desolate environment, it has a green context. Across the CBR building you will find the Glaverbel building. Not an urban environment, everything focused on office space, so no mix of working and living. It's possible to reach it by car or by train.

The building wanted to be an illustration of what can be achieved with prefabricated elements. The facade of which the openings are not rectangular but evoke the image of the first TV screens. But the construction with prefabricated floor slabs also show the possibility of building without using columns, focused on a high flexibility in lay-out. In a publication from back then, the construction method was shown.

A building is always influenced by the zeitgeist (architectural styles) and the economical context. The CBR building is "a child" of the '60s with large economical growth.

THE MARTINI TOWER

In contrast to the CBR, the Martini Tower was very inclusive and transparent to the Rogier square, which was a large part of its success together with its progressive mixed use.

After the building was demolished and a new one was built, these qualities seem to have been lost completely. Xaveer de Geyter attempted to re-unify the space with its Canopy design. Do you think he succeeded in his purpose, is the square restored or why did the Martini Tower perhaps do it better? Do you think there are other possibilities to restore these qualities to the square?

This building is the expression of the 50's and the optimism which was present in Belgium after 1955. The reconstruction and primarily the prospect of the World Expo 58 in Brussels. It's difficult to imagine now, the prospect to organise the first international exposition in Brussels after a World War. Just like large expositions or the olympic games today, it gave the construction industry a large boost.

The Rogier square always had large buildings. Where the Martini Tower was built stood the north station until after WWII. Why did they demolish the station? Because the NorthSouth connection couldn't be realised. The Martini Tower was a unity with different functions: garages, exposition spaces, theater National, stores, apartments and office spaces (Jacques Cuisinier, 1958). In fact they should call it "international Centrum Rogier"! But why the name Martini? Originally there was a large advertisement billboard of this Italian company on top of the tower. Later it was replaced by the large star of Mercedes, but everyone stuck with the first name. On the top floor there was a legendary bar, the first lounge bar in Belgium, maybe even Europe (I've been there once with a unique view on Brussels). All important figures were received in this bar, even the Rolling Stones! No Martini on the rocks, but Martini on the top!

When they spoke about demolishing this tower a lot of protest arose. Mainly because it was a building of such mixed functions and use. The theme of 'mixed use' was praised by Rem Koolhaas as "the" theme of high-rise buildings in New York. When the tower was demolished it was replaced by the Belfius tower, solely focused on office space.

The design by De Geyter gives some scale to this urban space and accentuates the entrance to the metro station.

THE RESIDENCE PALACE

Many agree that real estate would greatly increase its value towards its users if developers would focus less on maximising profits. In this project this focus is clearly very present and resulting in being able to provide very luxurious services, which may have been the biggest reason for its success.

Needless to say this amount of luxury is not achievable in day to day projects. How could we attempt in providing such an extent of mixed-use and make them affordable and accessible to everyone?

Belgium has a large backlog when it came to constructing "des immeubles", large apartment buildings. The reason is that of a juridical nature. Paris, Berlin, Milan already had large apartment buildings with great comfort. The construction of these buildings in Brussels only started in the 20's. Back then we were in deep admiration for the transatlantic liners, floating hotels with all the comfort you could possible want. Even Le Corbusier had admiration for these ships (see Vers une Architecture).

The client, Belgian businessman Lucien Kaisin, understood that there was a bourgeoise that no longer wanted to live in the inner city in dark terraced houses. He figuratively constructed "a transatlantic liner on land" (1922-1927) with Michel Polak as the architect. It was the first project of such a scale in Europe, even before America.

I feel like this project didn't get the attention it deserved, because they focused too much on its formal language which was not modern, so a building of less value. While the program was more than innovative, even progressive.

The entirety was in usage for only 13 years. The German army confiscated the building in 1940 to make it their headquarters. After the war the Belgian government bought the building and it became the Ministry of Public Works. Later it became a part of the European buildings in Brussels.

Interview with Gerben Van den Abbeele

by Ranay Utkelbayeva

PicNic the Streets: How it started? How the idea came?

“PicNic the streets” were happening in 2012 and it was organized by Philippe Van Parijs. 30 people who never met before made a round seating and prepared “PicNic the Streets” which happened 2-3 weeks after that.

Already in 2000 there was an intervention of Place de la Bourse with even more people (around 5000). But afterwards the event was forgotten. It was called “Street Sharing”. And because of street sharing, the year after that they created the coffee Sundays in Brussels. And it is very important – they started to make plans in 2002-2003. And suddenly in 2004 everything stopped.

In 2013 after picnic the streets they decided to start the building basing on the old plans. It took Brussels 10 years to get it, but as plans were there, it moved much faster – that was advantage, but disadvantage was that plans should have been updated.

So, it was already not the first attempt, and the government didn’t pay attention to it before?

Well the government did. They had plans, they knew the situation. But nobody really knows why it stopped in 2004. But it was too close to the next elections. They were afraid of reactions. This time they started projects very quickly after the elections, so by the time next selection were there, people already used to it. I think the city of Brussels was really taking action in 2002-2004.

In 2012 you gathered around 2000 people, why did they come? What were their reasons?

There were more then 2000, at first time there were at least 5000 people. I think people came because it was already that the movement existed, people knew about it, they knew what happened.

There were a lot of parents with children. There is a logic in Brussels that young people come to Brussels, they study, meet someone, have family, children. And then, they buy a house or rent an

apartment in city centre and when the kids are 3-4 years old, they say “that’s not nice to have kids here” lets move out. And so they move out. And I think a lot of young people really wanted to break that circle. And I think that’s the reason, because the first intervention there were a lot of parents with children – I would say more than half of all people. It was really a cry out from that specific part of the population. At the same time, it was really difficult to reach more and more immigration part of the population. They were there, but they were not well represented. And in the next actions the quantity of them has grown. But it still was really small amount comparing to the local people.

I have read that later on organizers tried to make it in other parts of Brussels, did it work?

It worked. There were two attempts, one of them was in Ixelles. But it took more time. The other one was in Molenbeek – on the border of Brussels and Anderlecht. Close to the canal between Molenbeek and city centre there is a porte Ninove. The location has important connection roads.

The action was also very interesting because the idea was to have a park. Park is there now. And it was even quicker to achieve. They put the park there and it worked technically and in urban way, so they put some elements and the idea in such a way that it evolves with time. And people use it and they add trees and things like that. It is a big approach. Not just to put big master plan and leave it there for itself. The idea was really to activate the neighborhood. And it is incredibly well-used park, on the border of the city centre. And it is on the neighborhoods, which is one of the poorest neighborhoods in Brussels, which makes it even more important, because generally in Brussels, we call it green city, but the green part of Brussels is a richer part and the poor parts doesn’t have a lot of big parks. So, it was very interesting development.

When you close the streets, it doesn’t mean that you minimize the car amount. Are car users not against of these decisions?

Of course, there is always the opposition between car users and pedestrians / cyclists / people who use public transport. But I think it is a fake opposition because people change. Sometimes they use cars, sometimes they change. There is a big group of car users, who are really stubborn and they can’t imagine the World without cars. And at the same time there are a lot of people who understand the disadvantages of car use – it is bad just to leave it as it is. But at the same time today (27/05/2020) they announced that Blablacar is reopened for car traffic – so it is like a pressure of car users supported more to the right opposition, mostly to the richer communities of Brussels.

But the “PicNic the Streets” it wasn’t only about getting rid of the cars it was about quality of life for everybody and in human scale and of course cars don’t fit into that. Also, at the same

time most people think and are convinced that we won’t all get rid of cars like this everywhere.

But the idea is slowly and surely push them back, especially in the city centre where most cars passing through. But the thing is that, their destination is not a city centre. They just cross it.

I have read that Brussels plans to minimize the cars amount to 2030-2035, so the plans are realistic?

I think it is, if it works step by step and it is important. But there is a difference between plans and what really happening. The ambitions are always big, but in the end the realizations are really small. The good thing about these plans is that improved 2 months ago – the plan which includes a lot of participations. Every stakeholder had the opportunity to intervene and even received the price by EU, because of the way they organized the participation. I think this plan is the next step.

Also much more people supported this time. So, I think the goals will be easier to reach.

Many people say, firstly It is good to have public transport before we can start get rid of the cars.

But if you look at the Brussels public transport (before the February crisis, pandemic) it was very very good, compare to a lot of other EU cities. So, it is possible. I think that infrastructure is there, of course we don’t have metros at nights, and it could be better. I think everything is there to make a next step.

And what do you think pandemic situation gives us a lesson that we use less cars and so on, the air pollution level is lower. But I see that some countries are already back to the same level, so it is not changing.

The pandemic shows what’s possible. There are a lot of people, who have to make some brave decisions in order to make it happen. And politicians play a big role in that. And society plays a role.

And it is going to be a struggle, but I am convinced, and I hope we will see it. So it is not a question if its going to happen, the question is when. And it could take a long time. In the pandemic a lot of opportunities are visible. In Brussels you see extra cycling lanes were added, some will be there by the end of the summer. Blablacar was reopened but in the end of summer it will closed by 80% again. So, thing are changing.

ZIN project: happy to see that you told about social housing as it is one of the main point in our design/research currently. Are there any projects where clients decided to agree to make a social housing? May be with government help they agreed to provide the space?

I think Holland is a good example where the affordable housing is provided for everybody. It is very big. In Brussels I think the housing are social about for 10-20%. In Holland it is up to 40-50%.

At the same time in Brussels in last 20 years there was a big investment in social housing, less in the richer part of the city, more in Molenbeek, Anderlecht and others. The problem is that they created a new neighborhood, mostly far out of the city centre. There are over 1000 social housing apartments further than north quarter, same developments in Anderlecht. In last 20 years they realized they have a big housing problem in Brussels. We are expecting 200 000-300 000 people will come to the country between now and to 2040 (2050). So, they put a lot of effort in this. But the problem is that they created something like a ghetto somewhere very far. I think it should be much more integrated. And the ZIN project is very interesting to do that especially because it is close to the place where a lot of newcomers arrive.

And another thing is that you focus on the housing but forget about public space quality. And now they realized that we don’t have enough green space. So the next 20 years they will think about this. Everything has to be integrated.

Brusselization: In Your opinion did Brussels need such brutal urban transformations at that moment (1970), yes/no, why?

Of course not. It was strictly business, to the benefit of a (happy) few.

In 1970 people were against demolishing and brutal high-rise building process. To your mind, what are the priorities today (taking into account amount of migration, current isolation situation etc.)?

Green spaces are really important. And I think the city should be much more focused on the idea of having green space close to everybody and accessible for everybody, which means not too far. And creating the city more on the local level – local economy, local shops. And come back to mobility to avoid people to go to the other part of the city to buy something from routing life.

Should we change something in urban/architecture approach?

Get it out of the sole hands of architects and urbanist and put it into the hands of multidisciplinary teams.

Do you mean politicians or economists?

I think politicians have a specific role in this, but I think it is happening more and more – architects work together with experts in mobility, sociologists, historians. And it is very important. And I am convinced, these mixed teams can go much further in developing ideas, proposing it to the population, make them involved, and then of course at the certain time proposing it to the politicians.

That’s why politicians don’t have to be in these teams because they have a different role in this process – to make it proved and make it happen.

Reflections and thoughts of some actors of Schaerbeek’s comings and goings.

This page is recollection of many discussion with people that are part of the comers and goers from the city of Brussels. Some even are the kids of these differents migrants, telling us about their different struggles in being different in the city. The differents discussions have been shortened and translated, and hopefully won’t be read out of context. I would like to thank all of these amazing people that have accepted doing this.

#Student at LUCA School of Arts I’m a student located in Schaerbeek. Looking at me, you’ll figure out I have a different ethnicity than the typical Belgian. I was born here, though.

And consider myself as Belgian.

Even though, it can be hard sometimes to really know who you are. For me there’s a problem in the connection between different migrant groups and ‘belgians’.

Maybe they are scared. I know some feel more safe walking through the Aerschotstraat (a famous street in schaerbeek with window prostitution), who is insalubre, well scary to me. Than going through the rue de brabant. In class there’s the same symptoms.

Every year, you can see how mingling is hard for a lot of us.

We’re not lots of migrants in the school. So there’s always the first you’ll do: look for your own culture. The very same background. None? Well there’s migrants, in general then. Third and last choice will be, mingling with the ‘others’. It’s a mentality. Something that is changing but is quite impregnated in us. What I’d like to add is that most of the time, the migrants will do their part first. And you might say: ‘well, you came here so you need to adapt first!’ And that’s the first mistake to me.

I think the effort needs to be done both ways.

#Migrant located in Schaerbeek I lived in Schaerbeek for less than 10 years now. I think merging in Brussels has been full of ups and downs.

The first thing you want, once you arrive in a country you have no idea about, is a place to sleep and to work.

The sleeping part was easier to find. There’s this local mosque where I attended for the prayer, where I started talking to this old man that proposed me a place to stay.

The work part was harder.

I’ve tried many places, and left lots of CV’s, at first.

But haven’t been contacted once. It’s a pity migrant’s workforce is ignored that way.

It could be used to Brussels’ own good to develop the economy but the social and cultural aspects too.

#Friend located in Saint-Josse Brussels is heading towards a good city for comings and goings. Comparing with other countries in Europe. A lot of these spaces created for Migrants are unknown to me.

But was amazed to see many places to help these people to integrate.

They are all pretty small parties and I’m not sure their impact are big enough.

Thinking about it now? I might be wrong. Eating and food could bring people together. Stories from differents backgrounds brought to life through food. It will help open the conversation through dialogue and conviavility. Eating someone else’s food, makes it much more difficult to fear them.

Different activities too? I know I learned to know many different people thanks to football.

School too, right? Can’t imagine european schools.. Even if they are exclusive to expats and other exclusive groups. Imagine one inclusive for everyone. The mixing and connecting should happen sooner.

#Person located near NQ As a person living near the Northern Quarter, I can say it’s the last place where you’ll find me. I’ve heard about the commotion around the WTC-buildings. And to say to truth wouldn’t care less about what’s coming next.

The Zin-building might be a good idea. But only if they stay behind their main ideas. And even then, no one knows if it will work or not. For me it is something beyond control. How will you know who it is gonna attract? Even if it is gonna attract anyone, actually? Are the different groups gonna want to interact? I think some people just don’t care. Some are close minded. And won’t do their best to understand.

#Kid of Migrant (1950) My parents have migrated to Brussels decades ago now. When they migrated they stayed together. They bought a house right next to my aunt’s. In sum they haven’t learned any official belgian language, nor have been mixing themselves with others. While my other aunt migrated to another country on her own.

And had to learn the language to be able to communicate.

She had no other choice then to adapt.

I think some are just not interested and motivated. I don’t think it’s a bad idea to mix to avoid conflict.

Of course there’s also different kind of migrants. And some have an easier way to adapt.

When you have a culture or religions that restricts some things that are natural to the migrated country. These elements can/ could make it difficult to understand by others. And scare away.

� Š Athos Burez

Interview with Dieter Leyssen, 51N4E // Mahdi Ghotbi Starting from the ZIN project, I assume that the public space on the ground floor -the Greenhouse- was suggested by 51N4E. Could you explain how 51N4E came up with this idea? Was there any advice by the Brussels Bouwmeester, or it was a deal between the city and the owner (Befimmo)?

I think in general the attitude towards buildings like the WTC and also many others in Brussels already existed that the ground floors were problematic and another approach was needed to make those very big blocks more on the scale of the neighborhoods, so this was already something that I think everybody knew that is needed to be.

The design competition asked for a response to that situation, but how we entered the World Trade Center was not through that competition, but through a master class that Freek and I teach with the adaptive reuse program of the University of Hasselt. That is actually how we encountered Up4North, the coalition of owners in the North district because we wanted to have a space to do the master class in the building and the ques-

tion we asked students was to investigate in a very intuitive way the district and what is wrong with it and how things could be improved and -obviously- also this question of the ground floors and the fact that everything is so hermetically closed and there is very little interaction between what is in the building and outside of the building came up in the discussions with the students quite regularly. This was I think in November 2016, and then only towards the summer of 2017 we moved, and the competition was in September 2017. So, the master class was before we knew that the WTC was going to be redeveloped and before the Bouwmeester was involved.

We invited not only the Bouwmeester himself but also a couple of architects, activists, teachers in that master class to discuss and to sum up what are the five agenda points for districts. We also invited the owners of the building so there we already informed those lessons to them. The greenhouse was not a proposal by the students, but it can be seen as an elaboration of what we already researched in the master class. It was a search for a form or typology of space that is not completely programmed because another lesson from the master class was that the district as a most modernistic district is extremely programmed so every space has its function, its offices, housing, green space, etc. The district needed a sense

of hybridity: spaces that could be green space, office, meeting space, and cultural facility all at once in different periods of time.

This greenhouse structure is something that I think in our design allows for this, and it’s also not the most expensive structure so that it could be something that in the economical scheme of the building could be provided without being completely programmed. So, there is the more urban angle, creating the multiple addresses, something that is much more linking to the different spaces around the building, and then there is also the economical angle: within the financial scheme of the building, what can you build that could fix in this development.

“The district needed a sense of hybridity: spaces that could be green space, office, meeting space, and cultural facility all at once in different periods of time.”

The owner Befimmo had already a plan to redevelop the building since long before the Bouwmeester got introduced. There were schemes by Jaspers-Eyers I think from 2015 before we were involved, and at a certain point we get involved through the master class and the Bouwmeester a little bit later is asked by Befimmo to consult them on how to organize the competition. But a lot of the program, and I think even to have a more public façade, more public image towards the building was actually more of a consensus. I don’t think that was really somebody who introduced the idea of the greenhouse somewhere. Of course, we introduced the typology of the greenhouse, but we had something more open towards the district, was already present in a form in the old Jaspers-Eyers design. We gave it a more performative typology being the greenhouse.

Was there any other idea or design proposal regarding making the project ‘more public’ or bringing more people and collective activities inside the building that was rejected by the owner, who was worried about the cost, benefits, or security?

I think what was a smart decision in our competition proposal is to work with both what was there so the two towers and the new slab which really increase the square meters, and then to have the smaller buildings and the different entrances which of-

fered a response to this question of having a building that is more on the scale of the district. You have low rise on the side of the Maximilian Park with the sports facility and with another public facility which now they are still looking for a tenant, you have the building of the Flemish Government which has its entrances, you have the housing which has their own entrance, the hotel with their own entrance, and the greenhouse.

So, this idea of having multiple entrances around the block was something that was in the competition design and they liked it. The owner was never in a position against that.

And also in terms of functionality, I think we tried to offer a sort of design that could have more public functions in it, but a lot of this is also linked to how the tenants organize themselves, like if the Flemish government will open their cafeteria and their facilities on the ground floor towards other people.

That’s actually the Flemish government who decides, not Befimmo, nor the architect.

What benefits do you think are there for the owner and the developer company to provide this space -as a valuable part of the property- to the district?

It’s not as beneficial as other square meters because it’s not rented on the permanent base. So it is something that they offered to the public space like in all privately-owned public spaces. Of course, it has a lot of value but not necessarily financial in that sense. It offers the space between the public space and the private space, it could allow for events to happen, it could allow for a lot of things. On the other hand, it’s still to be seen how it will function and how to make sure that it’s safe. Because Brussels doesn’t have the tradition of having privately-owned public spaces like London or New York. All of this is actually quite new for Brussels.

That’s kind of unsure how it will go in developing the building and maintaining it.

In your research* on the Brussels North District, you quoted from one social worker about the period of the temporal use of WTC towers: “We were solicited a lot to participate in projects, but at a certain point, we stopped doing so. We had the feeling that we were being abused. We did look for people to participate, but in end, com-

pletely different projects come out, actually not for the neighborhood’s benefit.”

How does the ZIN project want to respond to the neighborhood’s benefit?

I think it is a very accurate remark and also links to the process of developing ZIN which was very closed in itself. There was indeed the trajectory of mean values in the building and there was a trajectory of the designing and creating the building, where in fact a lot of it was sometimes mutualized. A lot of policymakers, engineers, and architects, got a glimpse of both but the neighborhood and the civic organizations indeed they didn’t.

The process of the building was had to be behind closed doors because of the disclaimer in the call for the Flemish government. So, nothing about the building design could be shared with the public because they had a tender where multiple owners in the district were fighting -or were applying- for the same program. You had the CCN building owned by AXA, you had the building at Tour and Taxis, and you had Befimmo. They were all applying for the same tender of the Flemish government and out of reasons for competition, it couldn’t open up their design process with the public, which was indeed frustrating because, in the different sessions with policymakers and civic organizations, we were saying that it should be a more open process but at the same time, the process of WTC and ZIN couldn’t be opened up yet because of this condition.

I think it is something in the future if projects of that scale happen should be thought of that, maybe part of the project remains closed and expert-driven but also parts (like the ground floor) could already go into discussion with neighborhoods organizations and civic actors so that they can also have their say in what’s happening in the design.

As the ZIN wants to be ‘inviting’ and ‘inclusive’ by providing the conservatory / greenhouse space on the ground floor and its connection to the public, how this project takes trans-migrants in the Maximilian park into account?

It’s one of those wicked problems where it seems so complex and it’s becoming difficult to do something right. One of the experiences we had in the temporal use was that involving migrants in an event or in a happening that is a little bit more formal than what they’re actually involved in the Maxi-

milian Park is very difficult because there is a fear of becoming more visible and many of the transmigrants want to remain invisible in Belgium. They don’t enter a process that is a little bit more formal. I don’t say that as an excuse to why we didn’t involve them more, but it was something that we realized at that moment.

“There is a fear of becoming more visible and many of the transmigrants want to remain invisible in Belgium.”

For instance, we had NANSEN there which is an organization that works with migrants who are applying for asylum. They deliver legal advice and they are part of the temporal use also now in CCN, and with them, we set up a couple of events with migrants but we only had migrants who were already applying for a legal permit in Belgium, because they could be more equipped just on the list. It’s just really a name and having your name on the list of something is very formal in that context. That’s why it was very tricky.

On the level of the park and the public spaces, I think both public and private are concerned about it and don’t have any bad intention, but it’s a very difficult problem to solve and you need to be really smart and think a lot about how to deal with it. For instance, Befimmo opened up their buildings during the crisis when they were more than thousands in Maximilian Park. They opened up WTC 3 and 4, and I spoke with the guy who was running the building and he was always running an office building but suddenly he was running a building with hundreds of people living there. He was completely overwhelmed and he couldn’t manage it, so then they said: yeah we tried it but it was a complete mess and we realized that we couldn’t provide in a safe way how to do it. I think modernism and those buildings and in general, how to regulate the city has become too hermetic. That is very difficult to reply to a crisis like that and come up with the right solutions because everything is recommended, everything is in terms of safety quite clear and if then suddenly something like that happens everybody just closes down.

I don’t think Brussels solved it good in any way in that period, and it’s very good that now voices are coming up with research

and solutions that if something like that happens again we are more hospitable and we can provide better solutions.

How do you describe your collaboration with Jaspers-Eyers?

I hardly worked in collaboration with Jaspers-Eyers because it was more in the building design, in the drawing of the plans, in the finding technical solutions for the building and that’s where 51N4E and Jaspers-Eyers work quite intensely together because they have the experience of very big buildings and we didn’t. So there was a good dual in a sense of introducing design expertise and urban expertise on the district and on how to do adaptive reuse from 51N4E side, but also just technical and design expertise on how to realize so many square meters affordably and qualitatively from Jaspers-Eyers side. We worked at a certain point almost we had a satellite office together in the World Trade Center so we were constantly together and it was a very intense and positive collaboration.

Marc Dubois once asked how it is justifiable for an architecture firm like 51N4E to deliver the architectural quality but only operate for 1% of the architectural assignment. How the architect’s interests -financially- in such projects could be increased as we know that the profession has always been described as “underpaid, overloaded and undervalued”?

I think it’s a funny way to link the impact that you have on that one percent. If you do it very mathematically, our impact on the design was 20% because it was 20% of the role of the architect. When you look at the design process, of course it’s not mathematical.

“I think the responsibility of the architect and the architectural profession is to constantly think about their own expertise and if their own expertise is actually needed to deal with the challenges of today’s society.”

There is a lot of engagement that we took in that particular design process that goes beyond the 20%, and the fact that we were

in the WTC working together with Befimmo, Jaspers-Eyers, and all the engineers and consultants made that it was very common flow suddenly. It was not something that was clearly distinguishable based on percentages or fees.

It was more of an investigation and research where all the different conditions, social, economic, and programmatic had to be dealt with in one way and a result needed to be there that replied in the best way possible to all of these conditions.

I think one way to answer what you hinted is to look critically at what the architect does, and also transform it with the world that is changing to remain relevant in a way. If you remain relevant, you also are necessary, and the profession will be valued in one way or another. So I think the responsibility of the architect and the architectural profession is to constantly think about their own expertise and if their own expertise is actually needed to deal with the challenges of today’s society. I think that’s actually one of the most fundamental questions in the architectural profession.

Then of course if you believe that you are offering a relevant service to a client or society at large, also the legal conditions to do so should be more or less provided. I think there is an issue now in a sort of blurry statute of the profession and especially in Flanders. The transition between a world where all architects were individual entrepreneurs and independent workers for one client. Of course, there is also a transition there where people work much more in collaboration, there are bigger firms who do bigger projects, who also are doing rather a research than only a clear-cut service. I think we lack a bit of a framework to have firms that provide better fees and security for their employees or independent workers. That’s maybe on the side of the public sector to come up with better recommendations about the profession and on the side of the client itself. I think some clients see the capacity of the architect as being someone who integrates different types of wishes which he or she is not able to integrate, which I think is also at the core of what an architect does, thinking about space, social, and technical components and how to come up with an integration of those.

The nicer or the good clients that we work for realize that we are actually good at that

and we are trained to do that, so they also trust us and pay us for that. I think something that a lot of people especially during the past 50 years maybe forgot is that an architect is doing so, and it’s not just someone who draws to get the building permits, but he really thinks critically about how to deal with social, technical and spatial issues. I think the responsibility in that question lies a bit from both public-private and the architects’ side to rethink a little bit that equation in order to give it an update in today’s world.

“Our goal was to connect dots, to find out how to connect an owner with a lot of capital with a public authority or a civic organization with no money.”

In Belgium, article 6 of Law 1939 argues about the incompatibility of the architect/ contractor. Is this a right for architects to be aware of the financial aspects of the projects as much as their impact on spatial qualities since we know that speaking about the ‘money’ has been a taboo in the professional society?

The movie in itself I think does it also. The fact that somebody like Wouter (De Raeve) interacts with somebody like Werner (Joris) and the Bouwmeester, and then in Kaaitheater all those people watching that discussion made me very happy actually because it wouldn’t have happened without that.

That’s very exceptional in a world where through modernism everything has become so segmented in services, in types of administrations who hardly come out of their own platform. I think that’s actually one possible job of the architect to design platforms where we can go beyond those clear-cut sectors.

There’s always been, especially in the last century, a group of architects who were thinking about money and who were trying to maximize profits, often not the ones who also write in architectural magazines and papers. There is a duality between the more academic, a critical scene, and the more professional scene who is actually dealing with money a lot. I think what is very interesting in what’s happening in the North district is that those two again meet and can also learn from each other. The fact that the school of architecture Sint Lucas was in the World Trade Center and could really think about an office like Jaspers-Eyers, how they function, what is good and what is bad about it. That was very difficult I think to have that conversation back in the old school, and some conversations became possible because of that move.

I think that’s also where I refer to this notion of the politics of presence, that by being somewhere you immediately start to change your politics and you start to question your predefined habits and ways of thinking, and that’s where I experienced at least, the World Trade Center and the North district, episodes as such a learning process. I think also it links to the position of Freek in the movie WTC: a love story, where the architect indeed was not somebody who came in with a predefined opinion about the North district, ‘We want to solve the migrant issue!’, We want to solve this or that.

This was not our goal to be very honest on

my side, I don’t know for others. Our goal was to connect dots, to find out how to connect an owner with a lot of capital with a public authority or a civic organization with no money. You try to those people get to know each other. We didn’t predefine what came out of it.

* Dieter Leyssen, 2019, “Network-based urban planning: Interstitiality, translation and gate-keepers in the Brussels North District” , London School of Economics.

An inclusive North Quarter?

“Welcome” to the ZIN project Tosca Van Reymenant

The North Quarter is preparing itself for a total metamorphosis from the current dead office quarter to a lively, mixed-use area. All eyes are on the ZIN project, which is seen as the catalysator for all future changes. It is a project designed by the architecture firms Jaspers-Eyers, 51N4E, and l’AUC. Will this project create an inclusive atmosphere that the North Quarter is desperately needing?

@ Befimmo

A talk with Loïk Eyers from Jaspers-Eyers

How did the design for the ZIN project come about?

So your office brought up the idea of a mixed-use building?

There was a call, together with the Brussels ‘bouwmeester’, for a vision/ idea for the redevelopment of the WTC towers. Architects 51N4E and l’AUC won the competition. Together with them, we further elaborated the design to participate in the call of the Flemish Government

No, there was always a mixed-use project.

That was also one of Befimmo’s starting points: bringing a first mixed-use project to Brussels North Quarter. The idea originated from discussion between the different parties, to not just have the monotonous office environment that you have today.

All those building blocks are filled by one organization, especially government agencies. To really have a mixed-use project, we have to make sure that there is life in the North Quarter after office hours.

How did your office get involved in the project?

We initially had a project that had been approved by the board of directors of Befimmo. Then the Brussels ‘bouwmeester’ asked for an additional call for more architects to be added to the original design team. We helped to prepare that call, Befimmo made the call. There was a deal made, when we prepared the call, that the winner would have to work together with the Jaspers-Eyers architects team. 51N4E won the competition.

What is the role of your office, of 51N4E and l’AUC?

E4N15@

The concept/project on the table today is the vision of 51N4E with which they won the competition. From then on, within the framework of the program of the Flemish government, we worked together on the pre-design in an open workshop with all the engineering offices to make what it is today.

The idea of the mixed use, certainly in the form of the zebra concept is new, especially on this scale. What role did the project developer Befimmo play in this?

Befimmo and the team of architects intend to turn the North Quarter into a more diverse mixed-use district, rather than a mono-functional office district like it is today. We see this project as an important catalyst for the district, a model project for future mixed-use developments for a more dynamic North Quarter.

The zebra concept is a track proposed by the team of architects, in order to get a 24h/24h lively facade/residence. And no dead building/part building after 17h at night.

Hotel

Office space

Apartments

How does the ZIN project respond to the problems of the Noordwijk?

By mixing functions, we want to activate the facades and all plinths of the building block.

A dens project brings life, by housing a wide variety of functions we guarantee liveliness around the clock. A conscious choice has also been made to give each function its own readability in the volume. In this way, each function activates its own part of the plinth, and its own immediate environment.

For example the apartment building has its entrance along the Antwerpsesteenweg and the park, the offices along the SimonBolivardlaan, the greenhouse becomes a meeting place at the crossroads, the first contact between the residents and their surroundings. The hotel tower is situated between the other office towers along the Albert II avenue, in between there are commercial spaces. Furthermore, the coworking building has very deep terraces in direct relationship with the park.

How many apartments does the project house?

111 or 113 appartementen, I’m hesitating.

Are the apartments all the same? One bedroom or two bedroom? Are there also apartments for families?

No, there is a big range of variation. On the +2, +4 and +6 we have co-housing units which is half of the platforms. These are large apartments, large living spaces with 6 or 7 private units, so they still have their own sleeping quarters, while sharing a common living room and kitchen. The rest of the residence spaces are studios, one bedroom, two bedroom apartments and three bedroom apartments.

do not have the right place in the city and that they have to stay in the park. There are very few other or better alternatives. We don’t see this as a problem for the project.

We think that the project, by creating more life and a better dynamic, will perhaps contribute to those people and that place.

Especially on the side of the Maximilian park, there is little dynamism in WTC 1 and 2 but also in the surrounding projects. By ensuring that there is more activity, it could add to a better integration of the migrants into the community. Now there is a slum, many install themselves here to sleep, in the niche of the building because the facade is closed. When we open up the facade, giving it life, then perhaps there is no longer the opportunity and the reputation will improve.

In big residential project, it is mandatory to include social housing. Why is this not the case in the ZIN project? Isn’t this a missed opportunity seen the clear lack?

No, there’s no social housing in the project.

It’s was not a requirement. It is not legally mandatory to include social housing in this project. We think that is totally unnecessary because we would like to have a varied North Quarter and the surrounding buildings in the immediate area of WTC1 and 2 are all social housing so we think it would be better to offer a different range of housing apart from social housing. Purely to have a more diverse community.

A great asset for the apartments is the view to the park. But with the presence of the migrants isn’t this a little weakened? ommfieB @

The problem of the migrants is a more complex problem than just the problem of Befimmo and the building block of WTC 1 and 2. It is very unfortunate that these people

This is a text from the website of 51N4E that highlights the design of the ‘plinth’.: “The relationship to the city is also completely redesigned with an open-ground floor with many addresses, developing a range of relationships to the city and public space. The project is thus a response to the surrounding context and future developments.” - They speak about creating new relationships with the public space. I immediately think of the Maximilan Park, which is still inhabited by transmigrants. How is this taken into account and what effect will the project have on them?

Our project will not directly solve the complex problem of the transmigrants, what we are trying to do is to fully activate the now completely blinded - facade along the side of the park, by establishing different functions along the park. In this way, this zone will not remain a blind back facade of an office complex, but the front facade of an apartment building, a supermarket, a sports centre, and a co-working building on the scale of the surrounding buildings around the Maximilian Park.

The greenhouse will be a meeting place. For which audience is it primarily intended? Is it a place that can also make a positive contribution to the neighborhood (residents)? Will the greenhouse be open 24 hours a day, or are there restrictions?

The greenhouse will be open to the public every day and evening.

Are their functions linked to the greenhouse or should it rather be seen as a botanical garden?

The greenhouse is much more than just a botanical garden, the program around the greenhouse activates the space. There is a multifunctional space, for neighborhood meetings, company parties, exhibitions, events, the entrance hall of the offices.

The restaurant/bar of the hotel lobby opens directly towards it with a terrace,

a multifunctional zone is provided in the greenhouse, some hotel rooms have views and open areas that open into the greenhouse.

And the multifunctional terrace of the lobby of the Flemish government and a coffee bar give out into the greenhouse on level +1.

In a promotion video on the website of Befimmo, it shows that the greenhouse can be opened in the summer and function like a park. Is this still in the case?

In the last planning application it can indeed be opened, but no longer with those large sliding panels that were on the corner. In the evolution of the design, we opted to open less large facade surfaces but the entire perimeter of the conservatory, over a height of 3m, 3.5m.

So these are all sort of long sliding gates that open around the greenhouse. When everything’s open, it becomes a covered park, a covered green outdoor space.

To zoom in specifically on the rooftop garden, to what extent will it be accessible to the general public?

Roof terraces are usually for a well-todo public, with the presence of fancy skybars. But if you look, for example, at the Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg, where they have made one floor publicly accessible so that residents and tourists can also enjoy the beautiful views, it is shown that it can also be done in another way. How will it be handled in ZIN? The roof garden will be managed by the hotel manager, here are also multifunctional spaces and a restaurant. The public will be able to use the rooftop terrace via the hotel. Residents of the apartments and offices can also use the roof terrace.

So the roof garden is only for people who use in the building (hotel, apartments and offices) and for people who want to go to the restaurant. But a ‘tourist’ can’t go and enjoy the view?

The roof garden is accessible for the people who live in the building, who are office users

ommfieB @

ommfieB @

or the hotel guests. In case of a public event on the roof terrace, managed by the hotel, users can go upstairs through the hotel. So if the hotel decides to open it up to people other than just building users then that is possible.

Isn’t that a missed opportunity? To give back such a nice view to the neighborhood? Like also at the MAS in Antwerp.

Yeah, but that is not easy to organize in terms of safety, maintenance, checking who’s there. It would also be a pity if the rooftop becomes some kind of place where vandalism reigns. So it is open to the public but under the watchful eye of the hotel.

We have studied the idea of fully opening it up to the public, but in practice that is very difficult to achieve. Especially in terms of evacuation. You have to be able to evacuate, only a limited number of people are allowed on the terrace, you would have to check it constantly. Also the Flemish government has offices underneath, you can’t just bring anyone on top of their roof.

What is nice about the project is that it is a mixed project, so the different users can use it. For example, if you are a friend of someone who lives in an apartment and you want to have a picnic upstairs, that person can perfectly take you. There just always has to be someone present who is linked with the building (hotel guest, office user or resident).

Is there room in the design for the current residents of the Noordwijk?

Let me take the example of the Upsite tower on the canal. The activities on the ground floor, the expensive restaurant, is not something that is accessible to the people in the surrounding neighbourhoods. The whole building dissociates itself completely from its context, like an island in the neighbourhood. - In what way will ZIN be different in this?

In ZIN we want to respond to this, the sports centre is accessible to local sports clubs, the roof terrace is accessible via the hotel, the greenhouse is a place that wants to stimulate meeting and will be open to the neighborhood during the day.

How are the needs of local residents taken into account in the design? What are the elements we now see of it in the ZIN project?

Placement of sports centre, placement of various commercial spaces including a supermarket and the greenhouse.

Could you explain the functions of the meeting centre? The spaces can be rented by people for co-working?

Meetings?

The meeting centre houses co-working spaces, platforms that Befimmo hasn’t found a client for yet. Initially the idea of co-working spaces but thanks to the very high, free floors with only 1 row of columns very flexible to give the client as much flexibility as possible to find a potential user.

Wouldn’t it have been interesting to include facilities for the migrants?

Befimmo as an investor, I don’t think Befimmo wants to integrate them but anyway someone would have to finance it. I don’t think that it is Befimmo’s problem to solve. It’s true that the migrants live close to the project but we haven’t provided anything for that.

Is there a connection to the Maximilian park en the six residential blocks on the other side of the street?

On the other hand, the connection is volumetric, we want to connect the volumes to the heights and gabarites on the scale of the surrounding buildings. A supermarket wants to respond to the needs of the neighborhood. The positioning of the terrace of the restaurant of the Flemish government activates this side of the facade towards the park. The terraces of the co-working give covered work/outside areas with views of the greenery of the park. The sports centre houses covered sports areas, and is an extension of the sports plazas in the park, as it were. The terraces of the residential tower activate the facade towards the park, by the placement of facade plants the park is literally extended into the facade of the residential tower.

sreyE-srepsaJ @

What added value do you think the ZIN project will create within the Noordwijk?

A more vibrant, more mixed north quarter.

Is there already a masterplan for the north quarter? Within the the quarter Jaspers/Eyers plays a large role. What is your vision for the future?

Today the city has no concrete vision/master plan for the North Quarter. We would like to extend the aspects and principles of ZIN in future developments in the North Quarter.

Do you have any idea why not?

I don’t know why politics and the city don’t have a vision or plan for the north quarter. I think that as architects we do not necessarily see this as a problem, but also as an opportunity. Because a precisely described framework would perhaps offer fewer opportunities so you can be more creative and color outside the lines instead of being stuck in a fixed masterplan.

Real estate architecture has the reputation of having a very short lifespan? ZIN is trying to change this mindset, by working on flexibility towards the future. What makes ZIN so different in its approach?

Something very important to mention: yes it is a real estate operation, fortunately it is a real estate operation, but Befimmo is also an end customer. So it’s not as if Befimmo is going to develop that project and then sell it to, for example, foreign investors or sell it directly on the market. Befimmo designed that and I think that Befimmo is bringing such an ambitious project to the North Quarter precisely because they have every interest in it being a very good project to keep it for themselves, they want to rent it out in the long term and not just now, just rent it out to the Flemish government and then sell it. So they really benefit from a very good project that will work today but also in the future and I think that’s a good answer.

Interview with LUCE BEECKMANS

by Khatereh Zarei “Luce Beeckmans is a senior post-doctoral researcher at UGent. In her postdoctoral research, she works on the intersection of migration, city and architecture. More in particular, she explores the materialities of trans-national migration (in particular from sub-Saharan Africa) and the spatial dimensions and implications of living in diversity.”

(Biography Luce Beeckmans, Ghent University)

We see (transit) migrants being excluded from the housing issue. This is further leading to them not integrating properly in the city structure. In their case temporality is very much highlighted which leads to ignorance towards this topic. How come this is happening? What are the changes that need to be done for improving their situation on housing?

I’m writing an article on the topic of the accommodation of migrants, and I’ve already written a couple of articles on that, I also coordinated for ‘Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen’, Kind of an action research on the difficulties a lot of migrants encounter after being recognized. It’s like that when they apply for asylum, they enter in most cases in a collective reception centre for some months or even years. Paradoxically the moment when they get recognized, all government support stops and they have to find completely on their own terms

a house, mostly in cities. Because in many cases they end up in arrival neighbourhoods in these cities where they have some networks of ethnicity, cultural or whatever. So that’s actually the weak point, I think, in Belgium and Flanders. It’s specially the system: on one hand asylum and migration is a federal thing and on the other hand housing is a Flemish one. So, they don’t communicate with each other! When an asylum seeker gets accepted, they loose actually their support for housing which is really a big contradiction and paradox.

We have to think about how we can foster a kind of housing that allows refugees to be included in a broader society and how it can also become part of the broader housing questions in cities. Today it’s approached very much as a separate problem. The result is that we categorize refugees to their status of refugees while they are just human people and once they are accepted they have to get this right on housing.

That must be realized, and that’s also a part of what we did with HEIM. But what we also did there is recognizing that a city needs kind of a permanent infrastructure for a temporary residence. That’s what we’re lacking now. Even from and institutional view, Fedasil is continuously building up and building down its capacity and in cities we see that there isn’t kind of a structural or systematic response on this need. A lot of people are living in transit mode in cities, not only migrants but also homeless people, students, tourists, expats. It’s a structure that we actually need in cities and if we have it and we can integrate other than residential functions into it, for instance a social restaurant or shops or whatever, then I think it could also be mobilized as a kind of point of integration into the urban fabric.

1

Our environment has managed to influence the way we see and receive migrants. Can we as architects and planners possibly change this view towards migrants? How can we help towards improving their integration through our designs?

The problem with Fedasil centres is that they are completely isolated from society. It’s partly because Fedasil is building its centres based on norms and not on a kind of more human perspective. It’s a technical perspective.

And it’s resulting in an infrastructure which does not only allow home making processes for migrants living in these centres, but which also really sees the centres as kind of isolated enclaves. And it’s not a coincidence or something, it’s an ideological choice of the government to do so, they want to make the centres as uncomfortable as possible because they otherwise think that it will be a push factor for migration. Of course, there is no study to prove this point, so you could say that architecture is used as a political instrument.

But now I think that a lot of migrants, who are after recreation or after asylum, even the illegal ones, they land in arrival neighbourhoods or they make use of arrival infrastructures. You could say that this is in a way reinforcing existing socio-economic and spatial mechanism of exclusion and segregation. But I think that what we can do, as urbanists and architects, is not to draw our attention away from these neighbourhoods. The most common reflex for us is to do so and focus on places elsewhere in the city, because we think they will better integrate there. But what we must do is just the opposite.

We have to draw our attention to these neighbourhoods and see to what extends we can foster social

from a legal perspective it’s very difficult to be the organizers of this kind of hospitality. That’s the reason why they have to fall back on these informal structures and self help structures until now, I think. It’s because they’re not claiming any urban citizenships. They’re on transit. I think that from a human perspective we can put them on the same level as tourists. They’re also not claiming any territorial citizenship. So in that sense I think we should treat them in the same way. They don’t want to claim nationality, they don’t want to claim any territoriality, we should perhaps give them the same rights for instance on decent housing. Even if it’s temporary. But if you want to organise this, you will always be faced with legal issues. And you will always have to work in a kind of zone between formality and informality, and legality and illegality. It’s simply the case.

Indeed, the informality aspect will always be much more rational to provide need for this group.

Yes, but that’s not a problem. It’s the kind of informal network of hospitality and solidarity that organises itself and that is supported by a lot of citizens and society organisations. I think that’s something that some state actors are also providing some help into, for instance the Red Cross. I think that maybe recognizing the fact that some migrants are in an in between situation, would also be providing them an in between housing in the sense that it’s temporary. But I think that we should just leave the idea that temporary residents and temporary housing needs to look temporary. For example, tents or containers, even as architects we have this aesthetic association that we make with temporary

2

residents, with refugees. It is some kind of very low-level quality and not sustainable. The need will be there, and it will stay, and it will even increase in the following years. What we need is a sort of sustainable and permanent architecture for temporary residents. It’s the people that will move, it’s not the architecture that has to move and must build and be restricted all the time.

Your work with Heim Collective was one of the few that was really proposing an idea that had the potential of being realised.

Why didn’t you want to do this?

That’s not the most important realisation. That would just mean that I spent all my time on one project. Now we have the chance to be involved in many more projects: ‘De Koer’ in Ghent, ‘Cinemaximiliaan’ and ‘Globe Aroma’ in Brussels... The impact was much broader. We also said on the agenda of the Flemish Bouwmeester: what we want is to change the minds of the architects and to think about a more inclusive city, about a more inclusive architecture.

We didn’t want to build it ourselves.

I’m working with students on this for Master theses studio. Of course I’m also looking at it in the sense of ‘how can we come to new design principles that can take urban diversity and migration into account’ and I see that as more impactful than only devoting my time to the technical details of one project.

We’ve noticed that the Bouwmeester atelier of Brussels and Flanders isn’t spending a lot of attention to this migrant issue. Why

aren’t they addressing this very important problem?

That’s exactly why we tried to put it on their agenda. You know, migration is such a fragile topic and migrants don’t really have a commissioner. What we did as Heim and what I’m doing as a researcher and activist (because for me research is activism and there is no distinction between the two) is by doing our research and design research we want to put it on the agenda. We want to take up this role as commissioner so that you see that you also must take them into account. If you walk into the city, they are also part of our society, don’t forget about them if you start designing for the city. So that was our main goal.

Next to housing, are there other activities you think are crucial and must be integrated in a city for migrants?

With Heim we saw that housing for refugees is very monofunctional, it’s focused on housing only and that’s also an important reason why these people don’t get included into the board of society, because they don’t have any contact with other people. We proposed to look for shared agendas. For instance, in terms of employment: sometimes they have time available to work in repair shops for bikes for example and that’s exactly what urban citizens really need. If we can combine these things from the very beginning, from the very entry points of the procedure, or even if they don’t want to ask for asylum, that would be very interesting. Even in Fedasil centres,

3

but also in arrival neighbourhoods, we could really start to open these functions that are bringing people from other neighbourhoods to these arrival neighbourhoods because there is something to win, it’s a win-win story for both parties!

For us the crucial aspect of activities is related to employment and to creating collective spaces of encounter. These two tracks can come together of course. For example, if you organise a social restaurant you can organise employment, solidarity but also encounter. For bike repair shops it’s the same. It’s important to think about a kind of circular economy which is inclusive, which increases employment rates with migrants, and which also allows for encounters between different population groups in a city. So that was our focus.

diversity is not yet established. And so that’s what I try to do but even if you practice architecture as an architect, it’s important to realise that you’re not always the representative for the people you are working for. And even if you design a museum, library or school, the people coming there are not coming from the same neighbourhood or are not living in the same conditions as you. That you realise this is just very important, I think.

What do you think is of high importance for us, as future architects, to focus on and do better for designing in the cities? Can you give us a piece of advice?

I think it’s important to recognize the fact that until now architecture and urban planning does not really have a vocabulary to talk about this topic. If you want to engage into them, an interdisciplinary approach is important. I also think that, as an architect and urban planner, we have to step away from the idea that we are the norm of the people living in the city. A lot of architects and urban planners are male, white, middle class people. But this is not the representative for the people living in cities. We have to open our perspectives, it’s our human obligation to do this. In the fields of architecture and urban planning, this topic of

4

Vacant Spaces

An Investigation on the Northern Quarter’s vacancy/occupancy rate

By Sandro Armanda

Chronology of the [unsuccessful] interview attempts After the attempts of interviewing Mathieu Berger of Metrolab and Michael Ryckewaert of Cosmopolis, I found more information that lead me digging through the Observatoire des Bureaux (OB) archive from 1997 until 2019. It's the annual report of office/real estate buildings in Brussels (i.e. occupancy rate, growth, etc.). In 2016 they made a special report focused on the NQ only where they have so much important data about the quarter and it seems like Alain Doornaert was the man in charge. I sent him an email in April and no replies.

After a week or two I decided to call him and he said he's no longer in charge for the OB and not sure if he could answer my questions regarding that particular report as well due to language limitation. He suggested me to contact his colleague, Bart Hanssens, who was also working with him on that report and able to speak English better. He also suggested me to contact Sophie Coeckelberghs from perspective.brussels as she's the one in charge for making the annual OB report now. I decided to send an email with the following questions for each of them but still no answer until today.

[Unanswered] Questions 1. Is there any source where I can get the exact numbers of vacancy/occupancy rate of each building specifically in the NQ like the ones you have in OB 36, but for different years before and after 2016?

2. How does the occupancy rate change since the major leasers from the government moved out in 2018? Given the fact that almost half of the quarter was occupied by them. (source: OB No. 36) 3. From the data I collected from the OBs you’ve been publishing every single year, the average real estate vacancy rate in Brussels and the NQ specifically is always somewhere between 6-10% from 2007 until 2018. But to me the whole quarter seems more vacant what those numbers say. How do those numbers work? Is it possible that some of the buildings were leased (thus, not available on the market) but not used?

4. According to your map in OB No. 36 (see attachment 1) there are a few buildings that have been empty for years. Is it possible for me to get the source of this statistical graphic? Since the numbers are missing there.

5. In the Maximilien-Vergotte report in January 2018, there’s also a statistical graphic about the dwelling occupation if the NQ since before 1919 until 2011 (see attachment 2) but the numbers are missing there. Is it also possible to get the source of that data as well?

6. Looking at the recent development in the Northern Quarter, especially the WTC/ZIN project, do you think this project will have any significant impact to the quarter in general? What is your opinion about this particular project?

Attachments #1

#2

The interview I had with Carlo Menon was really nice we discussed about the matter of huge corporate buildings which are somehow like ‘elephants in the city’ for around 50 minutes and I tried to make a good summary out of it.

Here is the interview…Hope you enjoy.

(P.S: Q is for questions and terms I asked or said and A is for the answers Carlo gave me.)

Q: Why you were interested in this topic at the first place? ‘Corporate Arcadia’ A: I will start with a short history of the context of this new contemporary architecture department that just started by the CIVA foundation which is kind of an old foundation (founded in 1968) CIVA was recently just saved from the bankruptcy so we can also count it as a new foundation.

Before, it was founded by French speaking community who provided them with a cheque for 350,000 euros per year for exhibitions but after series of problems with the budget the ministry of culture decided to stop the budget. Finally the region (Brussels-Capital Region) bought CIVA and somehow saved them from collapsing. They also re-centered it around the topics on the city of Brussels. That is why all their exhibitions are dealing with the topic related to the city of Brussels.

This contemporary architectural department has been created to be there when the first exhibition was going to be open to public from the most common department of modern architecture which is the department that has the most archives: AAM (Archives Architecture Moderne) merged with sintlucas archive that are also another initiatives of architects and citizens who struggled for the city so they are politically engaged ways to conceive an archive.

This department was organizing an exhibition called Unbuilt Brussels : presenting to public from archives of AAM and Sint-Lucas archives, a big retrospectives on counter projects and initiatives that were created in Brussels to ‘save the city’ or ‘change the city’ We want the city to be more than just cars and office buildings.

Cedric Libert the new director of this contemporary department asked us to create an exhibition that would continue or respond to the first exhibition.

The only brief he gave us was to consider the time frame: 1989 up to future.

The rest was up to us. What we wanted. By we, I mean Sophie Dars and I, we are partners in life and founders of Accattone magazine. It was an opportunity for us as Accattone to create an exhibition and move from the space of magazine to exhibition : Models, videos … things you cannot print.

Why this topic: we could continue this survey of people who struggled for a livelier city but there had been so many exhibitions about it in Brussels and the story has been already told.

There are also a lot of topics on collective works like City Mine(d) who repurpose buildings in transitions to offer them to artists etc. or to talk about DISTURB who are also collective and tried to save Martini tower.

People already know the story so we decided to do the opposite, to challenge the story of citizens who want to struggle for the city and get organized with actually what had been built.

What is the main phenomenon that has happened in 1990s in Brussels: the building of all these gigantic buildings that had popped up in the city that nobody considers them as qualitative architecture because they are corporate made by Jasper-Eyers etc. We know how they work they get the building permit really fast and there is a lot of collusion with political and economic parties etc.

We thought it could be strange having the exhibition about these buildings if we don’t take opposition and intellectual position of what we call suspension of criticism, so to make them let us do our job: let’s say we are just curious and we want to explore this phenomenon.

How we proceed: the idea of making contact with most of architects who designed these buildings and these contacts end up in the magazines and videos. We borrowed the models that was due to the fact that we had no budget.

We spent a lot of time to enter these buildings with Armin Linke. We didn’t want to rely only on the architect’s opinions because we believed it will change the spirit of the exhibition.

Also, all these buildings have an obvious public appearance that we see, people even can find addresses and directions with them! But you cannot visit inside them, they are secured and private inside.

3rd reason is the pictures of the inside that were published at the time which were done by architects and in a very artistic and monumentalized point of view and far from reality.

Armin Linke is always trying to show a materialistic side of the building: in flesh and bone.

He wants to show the reality by de-monumentalizing the buildings.

Q: You have used the phrase: ‘Elephant in the room’ how did you come up with it? Do you refer it to all corporate buildings or some of them? If the latter, how do you divide them?

A: The expression in English means that there is an elephant in the room everybody can see it but nobody can do anything about it which is the same for these buildings.

Also in French it is : comme un éléphant dans un magasin de porcelaine. ( like an elephant in the porcelaine store) The meaning here is that the elephant is destroying everything and yet you cannot do anything about it.

We used this phrase for two reasons: 1. These buildings are so huge and visible from everywhere 2. There is a lot of attention in ‘politetive’ architecture in Belgium in 10 years, everyone is attracted by small interventions, and whereas the big picture is being denied which is the fact that the whole city is built by architects who don’t have the same approach to architecture. Therefore, they are destroying the vision of the city.

Q: you have explained some historical parts of few buildings like MARNIX or SWIFTor BELFIUS, did you choose them for a special reason?

A: They are some of the controversial projects that are built in Brussels and were a part of shaping the city. And even if they are so famous and known by everybody, does not mean they are built in a good way.

Q: For some of them, the explanatory part is not clear for me; do you want to indicate a positive or negative image?

A: about Marnix, there is a difference because the building was built back in 1960s, but we are talking about the expansions that were made in 1990s.

What was interesting about this building is that in 90s they had a monument and they tried to copy the building and expand it.

There are also other buildings that have been built in 90s but they will never be made again today.

So we can laugh at KBC headquarters buildings near the canal, on top of the palace but there are also qualities in it.

When you talk to architects you figure that they don’t have the same attitude.

So we could find some differences in their work. Specially in the work of Constantin Brodsky from 1960s and 1970s works with Ricardo Bofill.

They had to work together because the owners, the big company who were organizing the urban exchanges, wanted to have the building and they wanted Bofill because he was the famous, star architect of 1990s and Brodsky was serious and built the previous building. They somehow arranged the ‘forced marriage’ between them and it was very strange marriage just like today that 51N4E participated with Jasper-Eyers. It perfectly shows the legit of money and power and clients when they need to buy buildings.

Q: There is a section in the magazine called: Terrifying beauty, which is explaining how these buildings were only about the beauty from outside and not inside. In my point of view they even failed to make a beauty on the facades. So how does this work?

A: This quote is by Rem Koolhaas: ‘Terrifying Beauty of the Twentieth Century’ On one hand the whole project and exhibition uses some of Koolhaas’ working methods to go and see what is ugly, what is real and what is actually there instead of what is the utopian aspect. He did a project in Lagos and he has a text titled ‘Dirty Realism’ which is about when you open your eyes and look at how people actually work: they don’t pretend that architecture is only for the rich and clean and beautiful discipline.

On the other hand, the quote is used to suggest that you can have an emotional and static attachment even to such buildings, that they are so terrifying but beautiful at the same time. ( in a sentimental way like Martini tower) Like a perverted statics that these buildings are a part of the city and they shape the city and we cannot undermine them or look away and we have to accept them; somehow like an elephant in the room.

Q: so the ugliness of these buildings should become a study-case or they should be accepted as they are and do nothing about them?

A: Accept them is the first thing and the exhibition is an open ending and we want to present a subject and we didn’t suggest that we should preserve them or celebrate them because they are beautiful even if some say they are ugly nor we must demolish them all.

In issue 5 interview I did with Armine Linke, we come to the conclusion that actually these buildings hold a lot of stories behind them: there are stories about architectures in the city, politicians, money etc. And somehow these buildings are documents. We use this expression : ‘theoretical nuts’ because there are a lot of layers and matters entangled : urban strategies, money…

Some of these buildings are proposed to be demolished, the kbc three building (?) will be demolished by office Kersten Grees although it was built in 2002! And they want to build housings instead.

Q: what is the reason of all demolishment after around 20-25 years? And they just build another ugly building instead which is about to be demolished after 20 years and so on.

With all the time and material waste does is worth it?

A: the problem is that most of these buildings were designed so fast, all the buildings for European Parliament etc. it was like an adventure or like a TV series that they wanted to finish the building in one year. That’s why they are not adapted or badly insolated. But I still think it is a strange idea to demolish them entirely instead of renovate them and improve them.

In my opinion, the reason they demolish them entirely is that it is more profitable for them to build a new building and sell it as a brand new building instead of improve an old building.

For instance, in contrary to those the façade of Madou tower is changed they did a lot of work inside but the tower is still there.

Q: Do you have any suggestions or solution for these elephants in the city?

A: There is no strict solution. We should accept them as they are. Demolishing them would be a very bad idea, while there is no better solution for the replacements.

Maybe the ‘reuse’ of them or ‘tragic interventions’ inside these buildings would be the best we can do.

Q: What do you mean by tragic interventions?

A: in the interview with photographers we were discussing about the static coats of buildings that are rebuilt or challenged by photography, and usually when you refurbish the building everything is going down. You just want to keep the concrete slabs or elevator shafts but the rest becomes new. Instead, I would suggest to do some forms of restoration, preservation or confrontation with these coats to not to forget that buildings have time captures in a way.

That would be a nice challenge for an architect.

Q: But architect alone cannot suggest a new acquisition for the buildings.

A: I agree that architecture and architects alone cannot really change the logics. The ones who can change the logics are the politicians because we as collectives don’t have the power to negotiate specially while the companies who possess most of the city of Brussels don’t see their profits in negotiatings.

Q: What about the projects that has been suggested again by these huge real estate companies?

A: First you must know that Brussels is a really private city. It is hard to change what already exists without these determinative owners of the city.

There are few projects that are being suggested or even done like Canal Wharf which theoretically propose a nice lively neighborhood by providing a public space with a lot of facility but in reality and in my opinion they are just a lot of market speculation instead of the real concept of improving the neighborhood. It is just an opportunity to exploit the land use of the space that is really close to Nord Station and to Tour and Taxi so the housing will increase the value and they can make profit out of it.

Q: I assume ZIN project is the same.

A: Yes exactly the same.

The dilemma for architects is that for instance if I just refuse to do the work, this goes like Bartleby or Motto, by saying I prefer not to, not in my name. which is refusing to do the job which finaly will be done by someone else.

The other is to struggle and to say Im gonna challenege to do it and force myself to make it better and maybe I will lose this battle ( which is more likely to happen) but something will change.

51N4E in ZIN project seems to be engaged in this way and this is why I look forward to better understand what battles they tried to be play and what they are going to win and how much they will lose.

Thank you.

Hoda Bahaari