Author:

Keywords:

Brussels, Modern Architecture, architectural heritage (post-war)

Abstract:

After the Second World War, the social and economic organisation of Belgium was reformed in accordance with the principles of the welfare state, and social security, public works, housing construction and education were given absolute priority. In addition, the 1958 world exhibition in Brussels was held with the aim of turning Belgium, and especially its capital, into the ‘crossroads of the West’. This led to ambitious plans, many of them conceived in accordance with the modernist principles that had been developed in avant-garde circles between the wars. At the heart of this lay a new urban morphology based on functional zoning for housing, work, transport and recreation. This future ‘park city’ was to consist of detached, rationally designed buildings into and around which greenery, light and air could easily penetrate. Although the aim was the liberation of the individual, this modernist vision left no room for participation; urban planning was the task of the government, experts and industry. This latent paradox turned into a problem in the context of the reconstruction that followed the Second World War, when the humanist basis of modernism made way for a technocratic logic. For example, the Richtplan voor de Pentagoon (Development Plan for Central Brussels) by Tekhné (1962) labelled three quarters of the inner city of Brussels as slums. According to the Streekplan voor de Brusselse agglomeratie (Regional Plan for the Brussels Conurbation) by Groupe Alpha (1955), the inner city was to become a centre for tourism and business, surrounded by 32 autonomous suburbs, each with 30,000 inhabitants; additional increases in population would be absorbed by twelve satellite towns. Although the plan never got off the ground, the principle of the functional zoning determined Brussels’ further evolution: the old centre evolved into a tourist attraction and business centre, while almost all other urban functions were located on the outskirts. The theme of this second Brussels Biennale of Modern Architecture refers to the ambitious architectural and urban planning interventions and the accompanying increase in scale that Brussels underwent halfway through the 20th century. These changes meant that in the course of roughly one generation many districts changed beyond recognition and a new skyline took shape. In addition, post-war construction transformed not only the visible spatial organisation of the city, but also its underlying economic and social structure. For example, housing and small-scale industry disappeared from the inner city in favour of office buildings for commuters. This process of erosion, reinforced by a one-sided traffic policy, a political laissez-faire attitude, the lack of any legislative framework and the absence of a sound housing policy, became known as ‘Brusselization’. It is precisely this association with the pursuit of profit by politicians and property developers, at the expense of the socially more vulnerable city-dwellers who lacked a voice, that explains the vehement reactions against Modernism in the 1970s. Now, half a century later, it is time for a more objective evaluation and appraisal. This is why in this essay we illustrate the transformation of post-war Brussels on the basis of a number of typical examples in the areas of housing, work, education and transport. By zooming in on the specific context and particular qualities, we want to show that despite the sometimes disputable views that underlay them, we are still talking about worthwhile architectural heritage that has great potential for the future.