Talk:Brusselization

NPOV

This article is extremely POV. It is not encyclopedic to say whether a change in land use is good or bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.206.69 (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I think the term "Brusselization" is very apt. I visited Brussels in the 1990's after the damage was done. I was simply a tourist and not on a tour of city planning disasters (being an American I have seen many at home.) I was truly shocked to see a huge box skycraper built next to a medieval cathedral on a large medieval square. I have never been to any other European city where this would have been allowed. I kept seeing similar examples of frankly bad city planning. Of course, I had no idea what architectural jewel had been torn down to make way for these modern "menneske silos" (a Norwegian term meaning "people silos"). I did not go to Brussels expecting to see such an ugly city and was frankly shocked. This process was started first in the late 1950's to "make way" for the '58 Brussels Expo. It was accelerated in the '70's and '80's when space was needed for the EU and Nato. These newer buildings were not well constructed and are now showing signs of age, which renders the results of discordant city "planning" even worse. Some areas of downtown Brussels could be used as a backdrop of a more urbanized Mad Max end of civilization movie. You now have a visibly disintegrating box next to a medieval jewel. Of course, not being an expert on Brussels architecture, I had no idea at that time what had been destroyed to enable the ugly office buildings and people silos to be built. Ironically, the Brussels art museum contains probably the largest collection of Brueghels. I can see Mad Meg striding through Brussels' hideous downtown streets. Mad Max, Mad Meg....??? FrancisDane (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"I have never been to any other European city where this would have been allowed." - ever been to London?Connolly15 (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Wikipedia articles should not endorse your (or, for that matter, anyone else's) architectural tastes. This article should be — and I hope after my editing now is — neutral when it comes to this dispute over the quality of land use planning in Brussels. It is evident that there are at least two sides here, and this article should not take either one. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Images

For future reference, note that the images and their captions are remnants of an earlier, heavily partisan, version of the article. Only the art musem skyscraper image is attested as Brusselization in the books that I've read. If you can find a source that confirms the relevance of File:Bruxelles, l'Agneau Blanc par Pierre van Dievoet 1696.jpg and File:Brusselisation in bucharest.jpg to the article, please add it. But at the moment they appear to be Brusselization only in the opinions of people with pseudonyms on Wikimedia Commons, rather than in the opinions of named architectural experts. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Describe Brusselization philosophy

In its current form, this article primarily discusses the history of Brusselization within Brussels, and only discusses the urban planning philosophy in the intro paragraph. It should have a section discussing the philosophy in more detail, such as drivers, strategies, and techniques; if possible, there should also be intermittent references and examples of Brusselization in cities outside of Brussels such as London or Paris, for instance. Alkeralex (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

Thanks for your suggestions.

• I must say that I have only ever heard the term used within its Brussels context, and I think you will mostly find sources pointing in that direction. I also do not think the concept has the same international resonance as, say, Manhattanization, or a more general notion like gentrification. Having said that, I fully agree with you that the article would benefit from a "Philosophy" or "Concepts and study" section for its theoretical framing, as well as some international examples where appropriate, per WP:GLOBALIZE.
• On a different note, I have reverted some of your edits. What you called "bias of the article against Brusselization" in your edit summary is actually the very definition of Brusselization, i.e. chaotic and often unregulated urban redevelopment with little regard for architectural heritage, resulting in a disjointed cityscape. Referring to it as simply "a type of development in which older or historic neighborhoods are redeveloped" or "a way of modernizing and expanding infrastructure" actually changes the term's meaning.
• I am also unsure why you changed the language tag to British English. Since the article was originally written in American English, MOS:RETAIN specifies that this should be preserved unless there is a strong reason otherwise. Please watch out as well for fixed image sizes, which should be avoided. If you want to resize an image, it is best to use the "upright" scaling factor (see MOS:IMAGESIZE).

Jason Lagos (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

From your explanation, yea the opening sentence does definitely better fit, since modernization and expansion of infrastructure have different connotations. When I first read it, I interpreted it as a direct critique of the concept with the qoutes, and that's why I tried "making it neutral" (which I didn't do a great job at, so thanks for correcting it). I had also changed the tag from American to British English because i was under the impression that "neutral" English is used in articles discussing topics outside of the US (i clearly didn't check that part of Wikipedia's manuels which Im new to, sorry; I'll keep this in mind in the future). As for image scaling: I honestly didn't realize I did that, my bad.

With all that said, should we add a section about things that characterize the concept of Brusselization? Or should the article focus more on the Brusselization within the city of Brussels? Thanks for your explanations on the topic Alkeralex (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply, and no worries for the "beginner's mistakes". As for your latest question, I think we can do both — expand on the general characteristics of Brusselization in the "Definition and concept" section, and maintain the focus on Brussels throughout the article. It would also be interesting to add a "Global perspectives" section at the end for the international examples, as mentioned above. ;-) Jason Lagos (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)