Whatever Happened to Ground Euro? The Borders of Brussels

Between 2003 and 2006 I followed, participated in the discussion, and published several analyses dealing with the spatial presence and architectural appearance of the European Union in Brussels.[1] This discussion was limited, spatially, to the area of the Leopold District in Brussels, where the majority of the European Union Headquarters are located. At the time this debate on architecture, politics, and representation attracted quite some attention in the Belgian and international press. To say the least, it had an air of sensationalism, as after decades of backroom dealings between Belgian real estate developers and politicians in Brussels, the city’s European Quarter was perceived as facing an identity crisis of sorts. It was felt that none of the existing buildings (including the Berlaymont Building and the building for the European Commission) adequately expressed an architectural identity that was “European.” Finally it felt like something was happening. This essay revisits and reviews what has happened with the debate on the Capital of Europe and its architectural identity in relation to the development of “Ground Euro,” that plot of land in the heart of Brussels, actually more commonly known as the European Quarter, which was suddenly bombarded with good intentions, ideas, and a nascent desire to architecturally embody an elusive European identity in a campus-like European Capital.[2] We are now fifteen years later (and I have been spending twelve of those in China, which itself displays a quicker succession and implementation of national narratives), and I wonder if the debate on the future of Ground Euro proved to be a fallacy; a fake narrative, to state it in today’s terms.