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)