I enjoyed reading this, Sam. But, while - like you - I'm lucky enough to live in a Ixelles, and that no doubt colours my perception, I have to disagree.
You cite a US journalist being shocked at the state of the city: they ought to take a very hard look in the mirror. Violence, while rising, is nowhere near the level of most US cities. Take, for example, Brussels' American counterpart, DC: homicide rates of 27 per 100k of population (2024) vs. 3.19 per 100k (2023) in Brussels. Beyond Dupont Circle, the chances of being robbed at gunpoint are not negligible. Midi is a bit grim; but take a walk around downtown San Francisco - it's a full-on zombie apocalypse. My point is not to underplay the impact of violence on Brussels' inhabitants, but I struggle to take lessons from US journalists on this.
Moreover - and this is now a matter of taste - some of us quite like Brussels' anarchic underbelly. I find it mindboggling that the road outside my son's school has required resurfacing every autumn for the last three years. Rubbish collection is "unpredictable". The rat population appears to be on a par with New York's. And attitudes to drink driving are concerning. But the flipside of this is a society that functions on consensus and compromise: everything is forbidden, but everything is tolerated. This cosmopolitan pragmatism is - I think - increasingly worth defending in a world of hyper-polarisation.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think we have to be careful when comparing to US cities because the social contract is so different. America has much less of a welfare state but also far lower taxes; more personal freedoms but also, inevitably, more crime.
American elites expect to be able to buy distance from society's problems (suburbanisation, car ownership, gated communities), whereas Europeans expect those problems to be solved and to be able to engage safely with the commons. That's why we tolerate taxes.
In Brussels, we increasingly have the problems of American cities without enough money left after tax to distance ourselves from them. That's not necessarily something that elites will tolerate.
As you say, you and I are lucky to be in Ixelles. But put yourself in the shoes of a bright 25-year-old without family money, contemplating a flat share in a crime hotspot for two years as they grind out the necessary internships. At some point it stops making sense.
Although you're right in most of what you're saying, to say that most of Brussels' charm comes down to the presence of the EU institutions I find a bit ignorant to be honest. Of course the presence of EU expats (of which I am a part) has added to the city's liveliness and wealth, but the city has an identity outside of that clearly.
Then I do sincerely think some parts of the city that I frequent are actually improving in a sense, with more green spaces, pedestrian areas, and new cafés and bars. Parvis de St Gilles used to be full of cars, for chrissake.
I agree that Brussels has its own local culture and parts of it are agreeable. The same is true of most places. But the thing that makes Brussels uniquely great, for me at least, is having such a great mix of interesting and worldly people in a relatively small city. That's a function of being the EU capital, and would migrate.
It's also true that parts of the city have improved, particularly with regard to green spaces and mobility. But the green-left parties that made those changes completely failed on security, meaning they lost power at the last elections and anti-mobility parties have come back in. We're already starting to see some of those changes be rolled back to make more room for cars.
As a long time resident of Brussels I completely agree with your article, but as somebody working entirely outside the EU Bubble, I feel like the EU Institutions share a big part of the blame in that story.
They've been completely disconnected from the city and the local habitants. And they invested very little in making the city improve. The EU quarter and their buildings look like shit, are run down, and uninspired from their conception. That's EU's fault, not Brussel's. You can blame the city for the failure of the Schuman roundabout, but I find it crazy that the EU commission contribute so little to make a central square of its institutions stand out. It should have been an international competition of well known architects, and be fully paid by the EU. We got a toilet lid that won't even be completed for lack of money.
If you look at how much the EU institutions cost to run compared to the size of the Economy they oversee, you'll see they cost very little, indeed they pride themselves of being very efficient. I think on the flip side they spend way too little. They should shower the city with money to make it stand out, as all the other world's power capitals do.
Yes the city has a lot of other big problems that have nothing to do with the EU. It is ill loved by its country, stuck between two communities that stopped caring about it, and extremely badly managed. But the EU could and should take this matter in its own hands. It would be a good symbol of what the EU could do right, currently it's correctly reflecting what the EU actually is, an out of touch ivory tower of an institution, incapable of solving the practical problems of its citizens and inspiring for greatness.
These are all really good points. I do think Eurocrats should have to pay at least some level of local tax: with a few exceptions like education, they use public services as much as anyone else. Plus there's a heavy burden on the police for all their escorting duties etc.
At the same time, only about half of EU bubble people are in the institutions. The rest of us earn more than the national average wage, so we should be pushing up the Belgian tax base quite significantly. Add in the other wealth-generating effects of wealthy residents and visitors - paying rent, eating in restaurants, transport services - and you've got a real economic engine.
I don't know if any studies have been done on whether the presence of the EU has been a net boost or drain to Belgium's and Brussels' budgets. It would be a very interesting piece of research.
I agree with you entirely on the cultural aspects: The EU institutions are hopelessly out of touch with European citizens, including those right under their noses.
The tax contribution of the EU institutions, their employees and satellites are certainly a net positive for Brussels. But I don't think the EU should see that as enough. That's the basic contribution any company in a city does. And I don't think the EU should see itself as simply a company with its HQ in a convenient location that it can move when it stops being so.
There's a political dimension to the EU having it's capital somewhere and there's a political dimension to having the place it is at looking functional and successful, and the EU should be invested in that on a deeper level that what can be expected from a regular company.
I also think that the EU leaving Brussels like rats leaving a sinking ship would look absolutely terrible. If the ship is sinking they should help fix it.
I agree the EU should be invested in having a good capital city. That may require some funding, but unless it executes a hostile takeover there will always have to be some degree of cooperation with the local government. The flipside to the funding coin should be a credible threat that the EU could move its capital elsewhere, if the host city fails to do things as basic as cleaning up the blood when someone gets stabbed.
This is also what I'd come to say. I'd also add that it doesn’t help that a lot of EU aparatchiks operate in deracinated global English, which is a real shame in a city whose charm in part should be based on official bilingualism. There is a fun Brussels out there, but it's not in the EU district.
I enjoyed reading this, Sam. But, while - like you - I'm lucky enough to live in a Ixelles, and that no doubt colours my perception, I have to disagree.
You cite a US journalist being shocked at the state of the city: they ought to take a very hard look in the mirror. Violence, while rising, is nowhere near the level of most US cities. Take, for example, Brussels' American counterpart, DC: homicide rates of 27 per 100k of population (2024) vs. 3.19 per 100k (2023) in Brussels. Beyond Dupont Circle, the chances of being robbed at gunpoint are not negligible. Midi is a bit grim; but take a walk around downtown San Francisco - it's a full-on zombie apocalypse. My point is not to underplay the impact of violence on Brussels' inhabitants, but I struggle to take lessons from US journalists on this.
Moreover - and this is now a matter of taste - some of us quite like Brussels' anarchic underbelly. I find it mindboggling that the road outside my son's school has required resurfacing every autumn for the last three years. Rubbish collection is "unpredictable". The rat population appears to be on a par with New York's. And attitudes to drink driving are concerning. But the flipside of this is a society that functions on consensus and compromise: everything is forbidden, but everything is tolerated. This cosmopolitan pragmatism is - I think - increasingly worth defending in a world of hyper-polarisation.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think we have to be careful when comparing to US cities because the social contract is so different. America has much less of a welfare state but also far lower taxes; more personal freedoms but also, inevitably, more crime.
American elites expect to be able to buy distance from society's problems (suburbanisation, car ownership, gated communities), whereas Europeans expect those problems to be solved and to be able to engage safely with the commons. That's why we tolerate taxes.
In Brussels, we increasingly have the problems of American cities without enough money left after tax to distance ourselves from them. That's not necessarily something that elites will tolerate.
As you say, you and I are lucky to be in Ixelles. But put yourself in the shoes of a bright 25-year-old without family money, contemplating a flat share in a crime hotspot for two years as they grind out the necessary internships. At some point it stops making sense.
Although you're right in most of what you're saying, to say that most of Brussels' charm comes down to the presence of the EU institutions I find a bit ignorant to be honest. Of course the presence of EU expats (of which I am a part) has added to the city's liveliness and wealth, but the city has an identity outside of that clearly.
Then I do sincerely think some parts of the city that I frequent are actually improving in a sense, with more green spaces, pedestrian areas, and new cafés and bars. Parvis de St Gilles used to be full of cars, for chrissake.
I agree that Brussels has its own local culture and parts of it are agreeable. The same is true of most places. But the thing that makes Brussels uniquely great, for me at least, is having such a great mix of interesting and worldly people in a relatively small city. That's a function of being the EU capital, and would migrate.
It's also true that parts of the city have improved, particularly with regard to green spaces and mobility. But the green-left parties that made those changes completely failed on security, meaning they lost power at the last elections and anti-mobility parties have come back in. We're already starting to see some of those changes be rolled back to make more room for cars.
Apparently the EU's 'geographical centre' is in Gadheim, Bavaria, near Würzburg. Manfred Weber eat your heart out!
As a long time resident of Brussels I completely agree with your article, but as somebody working entirely outside the EU Bubble, I feel like the EU Institutions share a big part of the blame in that story.
They've been completely disconnected from the city and the local habitants. And they invested very little in making the city improve. The EU quarter and their buildings look like shit, are run down, and uninspired from their conception. That's EU's fault, not Brussel's. You can blame the city for the failure of the Schuman roundabout, but I find it crazy that the EU commission contribute so little to make a central square of its institutions stand out. It should have been an international competition of well known architects, and be fully paid by the EU. We got a toilet lid that won't even be completed for lack of money.
If you look at how much the EU institutions cost to run compared to the size of the Economy they oversee, you'll see they cost very little, indeed they pride themselves of being very efficient. I think on the flip side they spend way too little. They should shower the city with money to make it stand out, as all the other world's power capitals do.
Yes the city has a lot of other big problems that have nothing to do with the EU. It is ill loved by its country, stuck between two communities that stopped caring about it, and extremely badly managed. But the EU could and should take this matter in its own hands. It would be a good symbol of what the EU could do right, currently it's correctly reflecting what the EU actually is, an out of touch ivory tower of an institution, incapable of solving the practical problems of its citizens and inspiring for greatness.
These are all really good points. I do think Eurocrats should have to pay at least some level of local tax: with a few exceptions like education, they use public services as much as anyone else. Plus there's a heavy burden on the police for all their escorting duties etc.
At the same time, only about half of EU bubble people are in the institutions. The rest of us earn more than the national average wage, so we should be pushing up the Belgian tax base quite significantly. Add in the other wealth-generating effects of wealthy residents and visitors - paying rent, eating in restaurants, transport services - and you've got a real economic engine.
I don't know if any studies have been done on whether the presence of the EU has been a net boost or drain to Belgium's and Brussels' budgets. It would be a very interesting piece of research.
I agree with you entirely on the cultural aspects: The EU institutions are hopelessly out of touch with European citizens, including those right under their noses.
The tax contribution of the EU institutions, their employees and satellites are certainly a net positive for Brussels. But I don't think the EU should see that as enough. That's the basic contribution any company in a city does. And I don't think the EU should see itself as simply a company with its HQ in a convenient location that it can move when it stops being so.
There's a political dimension to the EU having it's capital somewhere and there's a political dimension to having the place it is at looking functional and successful, and the EU should be invested in that on a deeper level that what can be expected from a regular company.
I also think that the EU leaving Brussels like rats leaving a sinking ship would look absolutely terrible. If the ship is sinking they should help fix it.
I agree the EU should be invested in having a good capital city. That may require some funding, but unless it executes a hostile takeover there will always have to be some degree of cooperation with the local government. The flipside to the funding coin should be a credible threat that the EU could move its capital elsewhere, if the host city fails to do things as basic as cleaning up the blood when someone gets stabbed.
Or they could support local candidates who know their shit and get stuff done.
This is also what I'd come to say. I'd also add that it doesn’t help that a lot of EU aparatchiks operate in deracinated global English, which is a real shame in a city whose charm in part should be based on official bilingualism. There is a fun Brussels out there, but it's not in the EU district.