BRUSSELS. The European Capital.

[Benonie]

Originally Posted by Ribarca

Very interesting thread. Looking at the pictures it's certain that Brussels is more interesting than most people's vision of the city. Visiting it is another story. It's not a city for walking around. Too many drab areas around even in the center of town.

I do like to walk around in Brussels....

There are still some 'drab areas', scarfs of bad urbanistaion during the 'golden' sixties & seventies, that is true.
But there are hundreds of nice squares, streets, boulevards and neighbourhoods that are well worth a visit. In the city centre and in the districts around the Pentagon.
And don't forget the more than hundred parcs and musea. Some of world class.
Like 'Lonely Planet' says: "Brussels is looking better than ever".

[the Ludovico center]

Originally Posted by Benonie

I do like to walk around in Brussels....

There are still some 'drab areas', scarfs of bad urbanization during the 'golden' sixties & seventies, that is true.

Only during the 60s & the 70s? That's quite an understatement. Benonie, even you as Brussels-lover must admit that Brussels was repeatedly raped over and over and over for the last, at least a 100 or so years by the well connected Belgian construction-mafia (to call their activity "business" is an insult to all businesses).

Brussels is the only large city in Europe that looks like as if it was largly destroyed by world war two bombing... except that there was not such bombing. Yet the city is so scarred and disfigured. I mean let's start with the biggest blunder - the "capital crime" of all that was committed LONG before the 1960s: the total wiping out of the river from the entire city. I mean, can you imagine London draining the Thames river and filling it with unoriginal buildings (shameless imitations of Housemann like the way it happened in Brussels)? Can you imagine Paris without the Senne? Amsterdam without the Amstel? NYC without Hudson? Well, that's exactly what happened to a historic 800 year old city in the heart of Europe, i.e. Brussels.

[EvanG]

Let's not exaggerate shall we. The area around the zenne was certainly picturesque but it was hardly in the same league as your examples. It had long before turned into a smally smelly sewer. I agree it was a loss but one I can live with and it doesn't come close to the destruction caused by the north-south connection on the other side of the ilot sacré. I personaly even consider the filling of the old harbour around the Sint Katelijne a greater loss.

[Josh]

The Zenne in Brussels was nothing more than a small creek so comparing it to the Seine or the Thames is quite exaggerating. On top of that it was nothing more than an open sewer with mostly favela-like buildings along its banks. So yes it's quite a pity there's no river in Brussels but the Zenne was nothing more than a small creek much like smiliar creeks in Paris or London which have also been covered.

[edit]I see EvanG was a tad quicker...[/edit]

[the Ludovico center]

Evan, Josh - sorry but I disagree. Being an Amsterdammer I may be biased about these matters but I think that there is no excuse in the world that justifies wiping out the one main river out of a city upon which it was found and simply stuff the whole place with appartment buildings and roads.

Rivers aren't just "things" you know they have something intangable - they are the life and soul of the city. And no, Senne/Zenne wasn't some little "creek". Check the pic below. If it was a little creek then the city wouldn't have been founded and developed there in the first place, Hello! How convenient of you to forget that, he?

[Josh]

The Zenne was a little creek, in fact during summer there was almost no water in it and during the rest of the year only very small boats could navigate the Zenne. That's why Brussels now has a canal connecting it with Charleroi and Antwerp.

When Brussels was founded the Zenne was nothing more than numerous little creeks and it was only later that they were put together to form one bigger creek. Still to compare it to the Seine or the Thames is really exaggerated.

[Josh]

This is the Zenne just north of Brussels :

[hix]

Originally Posted by the Ludovico center

And no, Senne/Zenne wasn't some little "creek". Check the pic below.

You simple do not understand. If you take a look at the Zenne just outside the city, you can see that it is a little creek. It is maybe only four meters wide. It is not a big river like the Seine or the Thames.

It is true that the city has been the victim of major city works, the north-south railroad as the most important, but today Brussels is again a beautifull city. The scars are almost not visible anymore, and the "drab" area's are being renovated.

We cannot change the past, unfortunately. But even without the Zenne, Brussels is still a great city.

You may also not forget that a lot of the great buildings, boulevards and parks in Brussels date from the 19th and 20th century. Brussels is the result of this proces of destruction and rebuilding, and I think the outcome is great and absolutely unique. We can weep about the things that have disapeared but it is better to look ahead and to be happy about the beautifull things that came to replace them.

[the Ludovico center]

Originally Posted by EvanG

Let's not exaggerate shall we. The area around the zenne was certainly picturesque but it was hardly in the same league as your examples. It had long before turned into a smally smelly sewer.

All rivers were once smelly sewers. But why didn't the Brussels folks implement the sewage system (an invention available since ancient Roman times) and solved that problem that way? Why didn't mayor Anspach do that and instead was allowed to eliminate the foundation DNA of the city?

it doesn't come close to the destruction caused by the north-south connection on the other side of the ilot sacré.

That was "big blunder number 2" I was saving it for another post in this thread

I personaly even consider the filling of the old harbour around the Sint Katelijne a greater loss.

Greater or not it definitely was another big loss, yes.

[the Ludovico center]

Originally Posted by Josh

This is the Zenne just north of Brussels :

This is the Seine upsream (before it reaches the Paris area



So you see. Like I said: there is no excuse

By the way that river pic of yours is a modern picture (i.e the river was bigger in the past than it is now after all the destruction and the diversion)

[Josh]

That pic of the Zenne is downstream after it has flown through Brussels, close to wear it reaches the Dijle river.
So really it's always been a creek on which only very small boats could navigate during certain periods of the year.

[Lariabian]

Very nice city !!!!

Regards.

[hix]

Originally Posted by the Ludovico center

This is the Seine upsream (before it reaches the Paris area

Josh picture is one downstream. Yours is upstream and is so irrelevant that it becomes silly. You could have taken a picture of the Seine source, to prove what? That the Seine is also a small river sometime upstream? Do you think that there is somebody in the world who doesn't know that?

There are two facts that you should remember.

1. The people in Brussels today are not responsible for what happened in the past.
2. Despesite that, Brussels is still a beautifull city.

And about the Zenne. That river was much smaller in the city center than on Josh' picture in the north. Any attempt of yours to compare it with the Seine, the Thames, or any other stream is ridiculous. The Zenne is a creek... that's all.

[the Ludovico center]

Originally Posted by hix

You simple do not understand.

Believe it or not it is you who is not understanding my point.

If you take a look at the Zenne just outside the city, you can see that it is a little creek. It is maybe only four meters wide.

Yea that's what happened when they BULLDOZED the river out of existence downstream. You get my drift? The river became smaller AFTER they cut the river in two: south of Brussels the river goes into the Charleroi-Willebroek canal. Then north of Brussels water from the canal is "back diverted" into the river-bedding of Zenne. But the amount is much smaller. So basically what you are looking at in your photo is this little "token diverted canal water" north of Brussels!

You get my point now?

It is true that the city has been the victim of major city works, the north-south railroad as the most important,

Yea, by the way they opened the whole place up again (near the Central Station/Hotel Meridien area).

but today Brussels is again a beautiful city. The scars are almost not visible anymore, and the "drab" area's are being renovated.

It looks better than it used to be, I agree... but but

We cannot change the past, unfortunately. But even without the Zenne, Brussels is still a great city.

But it could have been better! The loss of the river has definitely affected the mentality of the city (it paved the way for the further mismanagements that were to come later on) this all points to the loss of identity caused as a result of the loss of the river imho.

You may also not forget that a lot of the great buildings, boulevards and parks in Brussels date from the 19th and 20th century. Brussels is the result of this process of destruction and rebuilding, and I think the outcome is great and absolutely unique. We can weep about the things that have disappeared but it is better to look ahead and to be happy about the beautifull things that came to replace them.

You have a point there. This whole thing has created a certain chaotic charm. But don't forget that Brussels is not Las Vegas. It is an city with a history. That should count for something, imho.

[hix]

Originally Posted by the Ludovico center

You get my point now?

You are so wrong! The water of the Zenne does not go into the canal at all. Where did you get that strange idea?
When you see old pictures of the Zenne in the city center you clearly see that is was then also nothing but a creek. I'm surprised you do not see that.

[Josh]

The Zenne was not cut into two, the water flows under Brussels, it's certainly not diverted into the canal.

[Josh]

This is the Zenne in Anderlecht, just south of the city centre of Brussels, so as you can see it's always a creek, before it enters the city and after it flows out of the city.

[the Ludovico center]

Okay, fine by me if you want to be silly enough to believe that the canal and the diverted river just go parallel next to each other for a mile or two without cross-connection channels between the two, then go ahead, believe that fantasy.

[hix]

Originally Posted by the Ludovico center

Yea, by the way they opened the whole place up again (near the Central Station/Hotel Meridien area).

They did that because the street and surrounding are being refurbished. These are the plans:

[hix]

Originally Posted by the Ludovico center

Okay, fine by me if you want to be silly enough to believe that the canal and the diverted river just go parallel next to each other for a mile or two without cross-connection channels between the two, then go ahead, believe that fantasy.

Silly? It's a fact. Do you have proof for you theory? I do not think so.

Why don't you save your reputation now before it's too late? Admit that you are wrong and we can go on.