A city with no river, but ponds
Brussels is an exception among European capitals, or major cities worldwide. Most cities are built along a river, but in Brussels this (small) river passes under the city, so that it is invisible. The reason might have been that it was too small and that it consequently couldn't eliminate the pollution caused by the sewers and factories.
A wider canal replaces it for boats. As a result, all the area along the canal is industrial, the opposite of most cities where the nicest residential neighbourhoods and famous museums or government buildings are built along the river.
The nicer residential neighbourhoods are thus concentrated in the greener eastern and southern suburbs, particularily along the Woluwe valley (not a river, but a mere brook) and the numerous ponds that surround it.
Give the nice houses to the poor, so that the rich live in shacks
Another weirdness of Brussels is that the historical centre, where all the most handsome houses are to be found, is one of the poorest area of the city (e.g. Brussels-City, Saint-Gilles, Northern Ixelles, Schaerbeek). And as a consequence, the richer suburbs, which happen to be also the most distant from the centre, are ugliest and least tasteful or lavish of the capital (e.g. Woluwe-St-Lambert, Auderghem, Watermael-Boitsfort).
In Paris and many other French cities, it is just the opposite that happens. The innermost wards of Paris (1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, all along the river !) are the poshest and most expensive, while the poorest districts are all in the far-away banlieues (suburbs) made of ugly concrete residential towers (known as HLM in France).
The reason where richer Brusselers chose to leave the centre is that it was too noisy and polluted. So they left the architectural wonders of the European captal to the poor immigrants, and most of them are now run-down, some to the point of becoming ruins just good to dismantle. What a waste ! It is all the more shocking when you see the miserable-looking 1920's and 30's art-deco houses that the upper-middle class have traded for their former elegant 19th-century residences.
Fortunately the most beautiful constructions in the centre have been saved by companies (esp. banks and shops), law firms, restaurants or hotels that have aquired them. But too much is still falling into a state of shameful disrepair, especially in the western half of the city centre.
The (re-)gentrification process has started, with more young people coming back to the centre and renovating old houses. But how long will it take to resore central Brussels to its former glory ? Could it be the absence of river that has caused this uncanny situation to happen ?
Brussels is an exception among European capitals, or major cities worldwide. Most cities are built along a river, but in Brussels this (small) river passes under the city, so that it is invisible. The reason might have been that it was too small and that it consequently couldn't eliminate the pollution caused by the sewers and factories.
A wider canal replaces it for boats. As a result, all the area along the canal is industrial, the opposite of most cities where the nicest residential neighbourhoods and famous museums or government buildings are built along the river.
The nicer residential neighbourhoods are thus concentrated in the greener eastern and southern suburbs, particularily along the Woluwe valley (not a river, but a mere brook) and the numerous ponds that surround it.
Give the nice houses to the poor, so that the rich live in shacks
Another weirdness of Brussels is that the historical centre, where all the most handsome houses are to be found, is one of the poorest area of the city (e.g. Brussels-City, Saint-Gilles, Northern Ixelles, Schaerbeek). And as a consequence, the richer suburbs, which happen to be also the most distant from the centre, are ugliest and least tasteful or lavish of the capital (e.g. Woluwe-St-Lambert, Auderghem, Watermael-Boitsfort).
In Paris and many other French cities, it is just the opposite that happens. The innermost wards of Paris (1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, all along the river !) are the poshest and most expensive, while the poorest districts are all in the far-away banlieues (suburbs) made of ugly concrete residential towers (known as HLM in France).
The reason where richer Brusselers chose to leave the centre is that it was too noisy and polluted. So they left the architectural wonders of the European captal to the poor immigrants, and most of them are now run-down, some to the point of becoming ruins just good to dismantle. What a waste ! It is all the more shocking when you see the miserable-looking 1920's and 30's art-deco houses that the upper-middle class have traded for their former elegant 19th-century residences.
Fortunately the most beautiful constructions in the centre have been saved by companies (esp. banks and shops), law firms, restaurants or hotels that have aquired them. But too much is still falling into a state of shameful disrepair, especially in the western half of the city centre.
The (re-)gentrification process has started, with more young people coming back to the centre and renovating old houses. But how long will it take to resore central Brussels to its former glory ? Could it be the absence of river that has caused this uncanny situation to happen ?