Master Class 120% Brussels

120% Brussels 

International Master Class 



Date 

September 5–17, 2011 

Place 

Brasseries Belle-Vue, Brussels 

Masters 

Christ & Gantenbein Architects 

Basel, CH 

Office Kersten Geers David Van Severen 

Brussels, BE 

Participants 

35 young professionals 

15 nationalities

2 

This master class was organized in 

2011 by Architecture Workroom 

Brussels, supported by the Secretary 

of State in charge of Urbanism for 

the Brussels-Capital Region, 

in the framework of the Building 

for Brussels program. 

Architecture Workroom Brussels 

Joachim Declerck 

Roeland Dudal 

Elise François 

Philippe De Clerck 

Master tutors 

Christ & Gantenbein Architects, 

Office Kersten Geers David 

Van Severen 

ASSISTANTS 

Victoria Easton 

Guillaume Yersin 

Participants 

Emina Adilagic, Zohal Bashariar, 

Janik Beckers, Tim Brans, 

Filippo Cattapan, David de Kool, 

Alejandra Dominguez Delucchi, 

Denisse Florea, Arthur Goetinck, 

Christoph Hiestand, Arno Hofer, 

Jean-Benoit Houyet, Tom Janssens, 

Zuzanna Koltowska, Iana Kozak, 

Mostafa Mahdy, Loes Martens, Nassim 

Mehran, Sophie Mélix, Mihaela 

Meslec, Antonio Minto, Caterina 

Naglieri, Paolo Oliva, Stefan-Radu 

Pintilie, Filippo Piovene, Robbert 

Peeters, Catherine Pyck, Giorgio 

Renzi, Pietro Salamone, Guido Tesio, 

Sandrine Tonnoir, Julian Trachsel, 

Pauline Varloteaux, Marrit Winkeler, 

Jing Zhang. 

Jury 


Michiel Dehaene 

Mona Farag 

Eric Lapierre 

Freek Persyn 

Valérie Lambot 

Anne-Sophie Walazyc


International Master Class

4 

Foreword 

About two years ago, I was able 

to launch Building for Brussels 

in the Center for Fine Arts. This 

large exhibition highlighted 

numerous examples of 

proactive policies throughout 

Europe, which led to the 

development of high quality 

architecture. 

Since then, my commitment 

to extending knowledge 

and expertise led to a wide 

array of initiatives. Round 

tables, a publication, conferences 

and more, helped 

to feed the debate around the 

operational transformation 

of Brussels in an increasingly 

concrete way. The 120% 

Brussels Master Class forms 

another step in this process. 

I deemed it essential to give to 

the young generation of international 

architects and urban 

planners, to the generation 

that will experi ence our urban 

growth, the opportunity to 

imagine the city of tomorrow. 

Brussels must initiate 

change and adapt to the 

demographic boom, the effect 

of which can already be felt 

today, as the Brussels Region is 

facing two major and seemingly 

paradoxical challenges. On the 

one hand, urban exodus will 

have to be halted by providing 

quality affordable housing for 

the middle class to stay within 

the city. On the other hand, 

a sufficient amount of social 

housing has to be built in order 

to host the ever-increasing 

population. These two 

chal lenges are inseparable 

and must be the subject of 

a common approach. Recent 

estimates predict a need for 

50.000 new homes by 2020, 

a majority of which should 

be social housing. It also seems 

crucial to me that quality of 

housing be put forward as 

a fundamental contribution to 

the quality of life in the city. 

With the ongoing 

elaboration of a new regional 

sustainable development plan 

(PRDD), the Brussels Government 

has already initiated a 

large process, which will result 

in a global long-term vision for 

Brussels in the fields of spatial 

planning, mobility, economic



Emir Kir 

Secretary of State 

Brussels-Capital Region 

development or densification 

of housing. The partial modification 

of the Regional Land 

Use Plan (PRAS démographique) 

will also provide answers 

concerning optimal use of 

available land and the definition 

of new densities for areas 

in the prox imity of public 

transport. 

Besides strategic plan - 

ning for the region, it is also 

essential to develop thinking 

around the concrete densification 

of the existing urban 

fabric, on an architectural 

scale. This is why I wanted to 

make this first master class 

possible, as an exploration in 

capacities of the territory 

both for densification and 

typological innovation, and to 

provide insights that will 

help translate a quantitative 

need for housing development 

into a qualitative policy and 

into comfortable living spaces 

for the citizens. 

On a yearly basis, these 

Master Classes will tackle 

the challenges Brussels has to 

face and develop a solid base of 

knowledge, which will 

allow us to seize the opportunities 

and contribute to 

defining the transformation 

of the city. 

Emir Kir 

Secretary of State responsible 

for Urban Planning 

Brussels-Capital Region

6 

Préface 

Il y a près de deux ans, j’inaugurais 

Construire Bruxelles au 

Palais des Beaux Arts, une 

exposition d’envergure qui a 

mis en lumière toute une série 

de politiques volontaristes en 

Europe, donnant lieu à des 

architectures de qualité. Depuis 

lors, j’ai confirmé mon engagement 

dans l’approfondissement 

des connaissances et des expertises, 

par tout une série d’initiatives 

(tables rondes, publication, 

conférences, etc.) afin de 

nourrir le débat sur l’opérationnalisation 

de la transformation 

de Bruxelles, et ce de plus en 

plus concrètement. Le Master 

Class 120% Brussels est une 

étape en plus dans ce processus 

de réflexion. Il me paraissait en 

effet essentiel de permettre à la 

jeune génération d’architectes 

et d’urbanistes internationaux, 

qui sera celle qui vivra la croissance 

urbaine, d’imaginer la 

ville de demain. 

Bruxelles doit entamer sa 

mutation, s’adapter à l’explosion 

démographique dont elle 

connaît déjà actuellement les 

premiers effets. La Région 

bruxelloise se trouve 

aujourd’hui confrontée à deux 

défis démographiques de taille 

et apparemment paradoxaux: 

d’une part, freiner l’exode 

urbain en prévoyant des logements 

de qualité et abordables, 

susceptibles de maintenir la 

classe moyenne en ville, et 

d’autre part, construire suffisamment 

de logements sociaux 

pour loger la population en 

constante augmentation. Ces 

deux aspects sont indissociables 

et doivent faire l’objet 

d’une approche commune. 

Selon des prévisions récentes, 

Bruxelles aura ainsi besoin de 

50.000 nouveaux logements 

d’ici 2020, dont de nombreux 

logements sociaux. Par ailleurs, 

il me paraît essentiel de miser 

sur la qualité du logement, qui 

participe amplement à la qualité 

de vie urbaine des citoyens. 

Avec le l’élaboration du 

Plan régional de développement 

durable (PRDD) le Gouvernement 

bruxellois a d’ores et 

déjà lancé un vaste chantier qui



Emir Kir 



apportera une vision globale 

sur l’avenir de la Région, 

que ce soit au niveau de l’aménagement 

du territoire, de 

la mobilité, du développement 

économique ou encore de 

la densification de l’habitat. En 

outre, le projet, actuellement 

à l’étude, de modification partielle 

du plan régional d’affectation 

du sol (PRAS démographique) 

apportera des réponses 

quant à l’utilisation optimale 

des espaces disponibles et 

à la définition des densités de 

certaines zones urbanisables 

proches des transports en 

commun. 

Au-delà de ces plans 

stratégiques à l’échelle de toute 

la région, il est également 

essentiel de développer des 

réflexions sur la densification 

concrète dans le tissu existant, 

à l’échelle architecturale. 

C’est dans ce cadre que 

j’ai voulu rendre possible 

l’organisation de cette première 

Master Class afin d’explorer 

les capacités de densification 

du territoire et d’innovation 

typologique et ainsi ouvrir 

des pistes quant à la manière 

de traduire une demande 

quantitative de logements en 

politique qualitative, et en 

espaces de vie agréables pour 

les citoyens. Selon un rythme 

annuel, ces Master Class 

aborderont les défis auxquels 

Bruxelles doit faire face et 

permettront de développer 

une base de réflexion pour 

saisir les opportunités et aider 

très concrètement à définir la 

transformation de la ville. 

Emir Kir 

Secrétaire d’État en charge 

de l’Urbanisme 

Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

8 

Voorwoord 

Twee jaar geleden kon ik Bouwen 

voor Brussel inhuldigen in 

het Paleis voor Schone Kunsten. 

Deze grootse tentoonstelling 

belichtte een reeks voorbeelden 

van daadkrachtig beleid 

door heen Europa, die allen 

tot kwalitatieve architectuur 

geleid hadden. 

Sindsdien heeft mijn 

engagement in het uitbreiden 

van kennis en expertise 

geleid tot een brede waaier 

aan initiatieven (ronde tafels, 

publicaties, lezingen, etc.) die 

het debat rond de transformatie 

van Brussel steeds concreter 

bevorderen en operationeel 

maken. De masterclass 120% 

Brussels is een verdere stap in 

deze denkpiste. Ik achtte het 

namelijk essentieel om de jonge 

generatie internationale architecten 

en stedenbouwkundigen, 

de generatie die stedelijke 

groei ten volste zal beleven, de 

kans te geven om de stad van 

morgen te bedenken. 

Brussel moet haar 

metamorfose inwijden, zich 

aanpassen aan de demografische 

explosie waarvan de 

effecten nu al voelbaar zijn. 

Het Brussels Gewest is vandaag 

geconfronteerd met twee grote 

demografische uidagingen die 

ogenschijnlijk paradoxaal zijn. 

Aan de ene kant moet de stadsvlucht 

een halt toegeroepen 

worden door in kwalitatieve 

maar betaalbare woningen te 

voorzien en zo de middenklasse 

de mogelijkheid te geven in de 

stad te blijven. Aan de andere 

kant moeten genoeg sociale 

woningen worden gebouwd om 

de steeds talrijker wordende 

Brusselse bevolking te kunnen 

huisvesten. Deze twee aspecten 

zijn onafscheidelijk en moeten 

dan ook gezamenlijk aangepakt 

worden. Volgens recente peilingen 

zal Brussel 50.000 nieuwe 

woningen nodig hebben tegen 

2020, een groot aandeel hiervan 

sociale woningen. Het is 

ook essentieel om in te zetten 

op de kwaliteit van de woningen, 

een cruciale bijdrage aan 

de leefbaarheid in de stad. 

Met de opmaak van het 

Gewestelijk Plan voor Duur-



Emir Kir 



zame Ontwikkeling (GPDO) 

heeft de Brusselse regering 

alvast een groot initiatief op 

poten gezet dat zal leiden tot 

een globale visie op de toekomst 

van het Gewest, op het 

vlak van ruimtelijke ordening, 

maar ook mobiliteit, economische 

ontwikkeling of verdichting 

van de woonfunctie. Daarnaast 

zal de herziening van het 

Gewestelijk Bestemmingsplan 

(demografisch GBP), momenteel 

in studiefase, een reeks 

antwoorden bieden wat betreft 

het optimaal benutten van 

de beschikbare ruimte en het 

verdichten van bepaalde zones 

in de nabijheid van openbaar 

vervoer. 

Buiten deze strategische 

plannen op gewestelijke 

schaal is het essentieel om na 

te denken over de concrete 

verdichting van het bestaand 

stadsweefsel, op architecturale 

schaal. Het is in dit kader dat ik 

de organisatie van deze eerste 

masterclass heb willen mogelijk 

maken, om de mogelijkheden 

op vlak van verdichting en 

innoverende typologieën te 

verkennen. Zo wordt de weg 

afgebakend om een kwantitatieve 

nood aan woningen om te 

zetten in een kwalitatief beleid 

en in aangename leefruimtes 

voor de inwoners. 

Op jaarbasis zullen deze 

masterclasses de verschillende 

uitdagingen voor Brussel 

benaderen en het mogelijk 

maken om op doordachte wijze 

de opportuniteiten aan te 

grijpen en concreet de transformatie 

van de stad te definiëren. 

Emir Kir 

Staatssecretaris bevoegd 

voor stedenbouw 

Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest

10 


Today the world is witnessing a 

genuine renaissance of the city. 

Brussels, like many European cities, 

faces immense challenges on the 

path to becoming a world metropolis 

of the 21st century. It is therefore in 

search of urban visions and efficient 

planning instruments. Upon the 

initiative of the Secretary of State for 

Urbanism in the Brussels-Capital 

Region, Architecture Workroom 

curated the “Building for Brussels” 

exhibition. Gathering 44 exemplary 

projects of architecture and urban 

transformation throughout Europe, 

this exhibition presented a variety of 

ways to accommodate the changes 

in urban society, while improving 

the quality of the city as a whole. The 

exhibition called upon Brussels by



Introduction 

highlighting how architecture 

and urban transformation can be 

one of the most powerful instruments 

of urban politics. Since then, 

“Building for Brussels” has grown 

into a programme of actions 

that aim at international exchange 

and development of expertise 

and knowledge in relation to 

the major urban challenges of today. 

This publication presents 

the results of the international 

master class, held in 2011, as part 

of this programme. It aims to engage 

young professionals and future 

architects and urban designers to 

become fully-fledged protagonists 

in the prospective debate on the 

transformation of cities. By offering 

a unique setting for exchange and

12 

collaboration between 35 foreign 

and local master students or recent 

graduates, and renown foreign 

and local practitioners, lecturers 

and jury members, the “120% 

Brussels” Master Class allows to break 

new grounds in building responses 

to the demographic explosion 

of Brussels. 

During the short lapse of 12 

days, a unique methodology allowed 

to rapidly achieve concrete, precise 

and very diverse results. Different 

strategies have been developed for 

five exemplary sites. This is how this 

publication is also structured: by site 

of intervention. More than a mere 

toolbox, the projects gathered here 

thus show a scope of possibilities and 

help provoke an important shift



INTRODUCTION 

from quantity to urban quality in 

the debate on Brussels’ future. 

Designs for a denser Brussels 

take on multiple forms, build on 

a wide array of amenities, and are 

conceived as tools to tackle many 

more complex issues. As reflections 

on Brussels’ metropolitan planning 

are taking an unseen ambitious 

turn, it becomes equally crucial to 

think about the concrete design 

of the Brussels of tomorrow. This 

international master class, as a 

space for debate and experimentation 

on the role of design can help 

build the bridge between the quantitative 

demands of the city, and 

the need to design Brussels 

as an equitable, sustainable living 

environment.

14 

A Laboratory on the 

Architecture of the City 

An urban shift 

The 21st century is often called 

the “century of the city”. 50% 

of the world population today 

lives in cities, a figure that is 

to reach about 80% by 2050. 

In Europe, this percentage is 

even higher as since the end of 

the 1990’s, the European city is 

growing again. The population 

of the Paris metropolis grew 

by 6% between 1999 and 2007, 

while London’s population grew 

by almost 5% between 2001 

and 2006. Madrid even saw its 

population grow by about 19% 

between 2001 and 2010. 

In Brussels, these 

demographic questions have 

only recently come to the 

attention of the wider public. 

The assumption long was 

that Brussels continued to 

lose inhabitants and that the 

population had peaked about 

20 years ago. However, in 

2008, demographic growth in 

Brussels was twice as high as 

elsewhere in Belgium. Brussels 

is thus one of these European 

cities subject to a double, 

contradictory tendency. 

First, population 

growth has been no less than 

spectacular in the last decade. 

From 2000 to 2010, the city has 

welcomed about 130.000 new 

inhabitants, a growth of 13%. 

If this pace remains constant— 

and many previsions indicate 

it is rather likely to increase 

even more—population will 

grow by another 130.000 

inhabitants by 2020. The 

principal causes for this growth 

are high birth and immigration 

rates. Both of these factors 

manifest themselves most 

clearly in the western, former 

industrial neighborhoods, 

where the most fragile 

population groups are living. 

Today housing discrepancies



Architecture Workroom 

Brussels 

are blatant in Brussels. A 

statistical exercise: if one were 

to fix the part of a family salary 

spent on rent to a maximum 

of 25%, it would mean that the 

30% poorest families would 

have access to a mere 4% of the 

housing market. The limited 

production of social housing is 

currently unable to counter this 

discrepancy in the market. 

The second dimension 

of this double tendency 

is, paradoxically enough, the 

continuing urban exodus. 

Mostly young, upper middleclass 

families with children 

leave the city in search of 

an affordable and comfortable 

home with a garden, in the 

periphery. Every year, 10.000 

inhabitants leave the city. 

This figure, though largely 

compensated by population 

growth, remains an issue: as 

the share of socio-economically 

disadvantaged population 

increases, the share of middleclass 

inhabitants is in constant 

decline. As only the poorest 

and richest populations remain, 

social segregation occurs, 

and it becomes increasingly 

difficult to strive for social 

cohesion. 

The most recent 

demographic predictions 

project an increase of 170.000 

inhabitants by 2020, which 

amounts to a need of at least 

50.000 to 70.000 new housing 

units. Housing shortage results 

in rocketing prizes on the 

housing market, forcing the 

poorest to reside in increasingly 

small homes, and increasingly 

worrying conditions. A major 

part of those new homes will 

therefore have to be social 

housing. Brussels is preparing 

to catch up in terms of social 

housing construction. Today, 

the city accounts for a total of 

39.030 social housing units in

16 

2007, or 8,4% of the total offer. 

Yet, 50.000 people are on the 

waiting list, and nearly 50% of 

the population of Brussels has 

a sufficiently low income to 

gain access to social housing. In 

comparison, Paris provides 14% 

of social housing, London 25%, 

and Amsterdam even 55%. The 

Brussels’ government aims to 

reach the threshold of 15% by 

2020. This implies that 35.000 

new social housing units will 

need to be built between 2010 

and 2020. That is about 3.500 

every year, while the current 

annual production is at about 

500-600 homes. 

However, the more 

than 50.000 homes that should 

be constructed are not only 

social housing units. In order 

to tackle the exodus of the 

middle class, Brussels also 

wishes to provide a qualitative 

and affordable living environ-





ment for the middle class. These 

two challenges are inseparable 

and must be the subject of a 

comprehensive strategy at the 

regional scale, aspiring to an 

optimal equilibrium between 

private and social housing. 

Neither can the issue of 

building such large amount 

of housing be reduced to the 

construction of housing units. 

This quantitative challenge 

can be turned into a tool 

to modernize and upgrade 

the existing city. In that 

sense, it is the combination 

of contemporary housing 

programs with commercial 

activities and businesses, 

public infrastructures such 

as nurseries, schools, libraries 

or sports infrastructure, as 

well as high-quality public 

spaces, in close proximity 

of an efficient public transport 

network, which can persuade 

people to come live in the city. 

Brussels, laboratory 

for the European city 

From the fifties onwards, 

Brussels underwent thorough 

urban transformations, 

evolving from an essentially 

industrial city to a tertiary city 

with a growing international 

vocation. During this process 

of ‘modernization’, Brussels 

has been a testing ground for 

different and often opposing 

architectural ideologies and 

urban visions. All of those have 

left their marks on the urban 

fabric and in the consciousness 

of its inhabitants. 

Today the position of 

the Capital of Europe as a 

geopolitical focal point is a fact. 

Yet its actual social, economic 

and demographic composition 

is much more complex than its 

international status suggests: on 

the territory of a relatively mid-

18 

sized European city (1,1 million 

inhabitants), it hosts both 

highly skilled, cosmopolitan 

population groups and more 

fragile population groups that 

continue to migrate to the city. 

While being one of the top 

European cities in terms of 

quality of life (Mercer, 2010), it 

is also confronted with multiple 

challenges. Next to demographic 

growth, Brussels has to tackle 

the shortage of schools and other 

public facilities, as well as 

an unemployment rate that 

is close to 20%. 

These challenges, 

far from being unique, are 

representative of the process 

of continuing urbanization 

and metropolisation that 

affects most cities throughout 

the world. Compared to Latin 

American or Asian cities, 

such growing contrasts of 

very discrepant income levels 

and employment rates are a 

new trend within European 

metropolitan areas. The fact 

that these global tendencies 

manifest themselves so clearly 

within a limited, tangible 

territory allows us to consider 

Brussels, once again, as a 

laboratory for the European city 

of the future. 

While the demographic 

challenge is at the core of urban 

and territorial planning studies, 

the capacities of the existing 

urban fabric to accommodate 

these demographic changes 

are also a crucial question 

in the field of architecture 

and urban design. How can





we increase — at times even 

double — the density of the 

existing city? 

An international 

master class 

Wishing to engage the ability of 

young professionals and future 

architects and urban designers 

to become fully-fledged 

protagonists in the prospective 

debate on the transformations 

of cities, the “120% Brussels” 


explored the capacity of the 

European City to absorb these 

changes. The results will help 

develop ideas, principles and 

models for the imminent 

transformation of Brussels and 

help translate a quantitative 

need for housing construction 

into a qualitative urban project 

and policy. 

Five sites were identified 

as relevant spaces for 

experimentation on new 

“Brussel-ian” forms of density. 

Situated at the very core of 

the city or the far outskirts, 

ranging from the size of an 

urban block to entire campuses, 

these sites represent a great 

variety of possible situations 

where housing could be 

(re)implemented. 

Two internationally 

renowned practices were 

invited to take the lead of the 

master class. Brussels-based 

Office Kersten Geers David 

Van Severen and Christ & 

Gantenbein Architects from

20 

Basel, each brought their 

personal knowhow and a 

unique and innovative design 

method. 

Typological Transfer 

in practice 

The methodology of 

“typological transfer” stems 

from a paradox that lies at 

the core of the architectural 

practice: when architects are 

to create the future, only one 

thing is available to them: the 

past. The grand innovations of 

the Italian Renaissance came 

forth from a thorough study 

of Roman Antiquity. Even the 

modernist doctrine took its 

essence in studies of archaic 

cultures, in search of timeless 

principles. This principle of 

studying the past to imagine 

the future is the starting 

point of the master class. As 

an exercise, the participants 

have been invited to compose 

a project for Brussels by 

deploying samples of dense city 

fabric and urban buildings that 

have proven their qualities in 

other cities. 

‘Typological Transfer’ 

is a design method and a 

method for teaching that is 

developed at the ETH in Zürich 

by the chair of Emanuel Christ 

and Christoph Gantenbein. 

The method conveys a belief 

in urban architecture. In 

building the city by means of 

strong pieces of architecture. 

The capacity of the existing 

urban fabric to accommodate 

densification, and the 

means to build qualitative, 

but significantly denser, 

neighborhoods, are tested by 

the transfer, transposition and 

translation of existing building 

typologies. What might seem 

a playful act at first, actually 

reinstalls a recurring but long





forgotten practice: successful 

building typologies have been 

copied throughout the world, 

from city to city. The most 

famous example of this is 19th 

century Paris. The Haussmann 

building typology has been 

transferred to numerous other 

European cities, and also to 

Brussels. 

Instead of witnessing 

this phenomenon, ‘Typological 

Transfer’ turns this method 

into a conscious act of design. 

Students and researchers 

at ETH examined building 

typologies of 20th century 

cities, in an attempt to reveal 

and describe the defining 

characteristics of these urban 

architectures. This ambition 

naturally leads to studying 

cities that are intuitively 

identified as urban. 

The type and the city 

Four cities were the subject 

of typological study: Hong 

Kong, Rome, New York, and 

Buenos Aires. All of them are 

modern cities, which grew 

Assistenzprofessur Emanuel Christ und Christoph Gantenbein — Typologien # 1 Hong Kong 

Kontakt: 

www. 

christgantenbein. 

arch.ethz.ch 

Assistenten: 

FS 

Nele Dechmann 

2010 Victoria Easton 

Patrick Schmid 

Raoul Sigl 

Susanne Vécsey 

Assistenz: 

HIL E 70.5 

FS 

2011 

Kontakt: 

www. 


arch.ethz.ch 

Assistenten: 

Nele Dechmann 

Victoria Easton 


Raoul Sigl 


Assistenz: 

HIL E 70.5 

Assistenzprofessur 

Emanuel Christ und Christoph Gantenbein 

Typologie 

# 1 

Hong Kong 

Assistenzprofessur 


Typologie 

# 3 

New York 

Kontakt: Assistenzprofessur 

www. 



arch.ethz.ch 

Assistenten: 

HS Nele Dechmann 



Raoul Sigl 


Assistenz: 

HIL E 70.5 

Typologie 

# 2 

Rom 

Kontakt: Assistenzprofessur 

www. 



arch.ethz.ch 

Assistenten: 

HS Nele Dechmann 



Raoul Sigl 

Franco Pajarola 

Guillaume Yersin 

explosively during the period 

of industrialization, or even 

afterwards. They are cities with 

unique development patterns 

that are characterized by a 

specific architecture. It is this 

architectural dimension of 

those cities that is critical to 

their urban quality. The specific 

architectural typologies possess 

the urban qualities that are 

often missing in contemporary 

building production. Rather 

Assistenz: 

HIL E 70.5 

Typologie 

# 4 

Buenos 

Aires

22 

than making a portrait of 

the selected cities, the study 

indexes and describes these 

architectural typologies. By 

definition, a typology is a set 

of principles which are not 

site-specific. Hence, the type 

can be universally applied, 

even outside the city where it 

originated. 

The resulting “typological 

toolbox” is the departure 

point for the master class: 

it simultaneously sets an 

architectural language, a 

working method and a statement 

from which to depart. 

By selecting one or more 

typologies, by transposing 

their defining principles, and 

by composing these into a 

new architectural constellation, 

the students used the building 

types from the database as 

the building stones for their 

proposals. 

Therefore the question 

that is researched through the 

‘Typological Transfer’ method 

can be summarized as such: how 

can a successful typology in, 

for example, New York, produce 

similar qualities in the Brussels’ 

urban fabric? Essentially, the 

method proposes a cultural 

transfer, in which new situations 

are explored by the encounter 

and integration of a foreign 

element. Things that have no a 

priori relation are juxtaposed. 

This confrontation produces 

unexpected tensions that need 

to be mediated, and show 

potentials that can be further 

explored. This corresponds very 

directly to the method of collage.





A strict diversity 

The references to the qualities 

of the typologies, including 

the internal materiality of 

the apartments or houses, are 

carried through in the graphic 

representation of the projects 

developed in the master 

class. No fancy renderings, no 

axonometrics. The method 

of typological transfer 

calls for other techniques 

of representation. Using 

photographs of the “imported” 

buildings as the starting point 

for image production, the 

referencing of plans finds its 

analogue in the representation 

with photographic collages. 

In order to dedicate all 

attention and two weeks of work 

to a limited number of products, 

the presentation of the projects 

was precisely formatted: one 

plan, one model, two collages.

24 

This seemingly rigid format 

for representation, is what 

reveals the diversity of 

proposals in this publication. 

It is this consistency in 

presentation that allows for 

an optimal reading of the 

variations in spatial quality, 

proportion, and atmosphere. 

The coherence in presentation 

underlines the conviction 

that spurred from these 12 

days of intense design research: 

densities and quantities alone 

do not make for a qualitative 

urban project. They also 

provoke a reflection on the 

material quality of the city. It 

is clear that the demographic 

boom, both in Brussels and 

Europe, will permanently 

change the appearance of cities. 

But that is exactly where the 

story begins: the 120% Brussels 

master class is nothing 

more, and nothing less, than 

an exploration of a vocabulary 

to build tomorrow’s capital 

of Europe.

0 1 

5 10 

0 1 

5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 

5 

0 1 

5 

0 1 

5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 

5 10 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 

5 10 20 

0 1 

5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 

5 10 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 

5 10 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 

5 10 20 

0 1 

5 10 20 



Hong Kong 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 20

0 1 5 10 

0 1 5 10 0 1 5 10 

0 1 5 10 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 

0 1 5 10 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 20 

0 1 5 10 

26 

0 1 5 10 20

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

London Terrace - 9th to 10th Avenues 

1:1000 

1 5 10 20 

One Park Avenue 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

The Majestic 

1182 Broadway 

1:500 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

110 Wall Street 

1:500 

The Riviera - 790 Riverside Drive 

1 5 10 

The Belnord 

1:1000 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

Tudor City 

1:500 

11 East 36th Street 

1:500 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

998 Fifth Avenue 

1:500 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 20 220 W 98th Street 

1:500 

4 East 66th Street - 845 Fifth Avenue 

1:500 

1:500 

Hotel des Artistes 

1:500 



ROME 

NEW YORK 

Starrett Lehigh 



The Apthorpe 

2209 Broadway to West End Avenue 

West 78th to WEst 79th Street 


1 5 10 20 

1:1000 

1:1000 

1:1000 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1:1000 

1 5 10 20

1 5 10 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 

28 

Edificio Comega 

3D Modell 

3D Modell 

3D Modell 

3D Modell 

3D Modell 

3D Modell 

3D Modell 

Mario Palanti. Hotel Castelar 

3D Modell 

3D Modell 

3D Modell 

3D Modell 

Edificio de Renta, Juramento 1733 

Mario Palanti. Hotel Castelar 

3D Modell 

3D Modell 

3D Modell 

Güemes 4426, F. Bereterbide 

3D Modell 

Torre Libertador 

3D Modell 

Güemes 4426, F. Bereterbide 

Edificio Panedile 

3D Modell 


3D Modell 

3D Modell 

3D Modell 

3D Modell 



3D Modell 

Pasaje Santamarina 

3D Modell 

3D Modell 

Mario Palanti, Rivadavia 2635 

3D Modell

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 20 

1 5 10 



BUENOS AIRES 

Miscellaneous 
















21 East 21th Street

30 

Site 1 

D’Ieteren Block 

Surface: 9,9 ha 

Completely saturated by industrial 

buildings, this large urban block 

is a point of encounter between 

the finely-meshed fabric of 

city dwellings and the large parcels 

of industrial activities near the 

canal. As the largest activity on site, 

the car retailer D’Ieteren, will be 

leaving the block to settle elsewhere, 

this block in the heart of the city will 

be largely vacant. This can be an 

opportunity to conceive a drastic 

renewal of the industrial fabric, 

allowing more porosity and urban 

life inside this superblock. 

Beyond mere vacancy, this 

site is a strategic place for the city 

as a whole. In front of it lies the 

slaughterhouse of Anderlecht, being 

the largest marketplace of the city 

and a hub of very divers activities. 

The nearest metro station, Delacroix, 

is also part of the new metro loop 

in the center, including this part of 

the city in what can be considered as 

the new central districts of Brussels.



D’Ieteren Block

32



D’Ieteren Block

34 

A compact urban fabric becomes a 

center of activity by carefully alternating 

inner courtyards and rising towers.



Janik Beckers (BE) 

Guido Teslo (IT) 

Proposal 1A 

Based on a clear definition of borders, 

the chosen strategy allows an 

intense densification of the block 

without heavy transformation of its 

existing shape and structure. Within 

the clear perimeter, three large 

urban “islands” are defined, each 

internally organized and subdivided 

into smaller parts. Only one new 

street is necessary for the entrances 

to individual dwellings, garages and 

courtyards. This rational parceling 

allows for a clarity and flexibility 

within the fabric. 

The dwellings are arranged back 

to back in order to optimize land 

use. Two main typologies of dwellings 

have been selected—one 

for the perimeters facing the streets, 

one for the infill arranged around 

common courtyards. The typology 

of the perimeter is inspired from the 

traditional row houses. The deep 

gothic parcel is turned 90 degrees, 

which allows the single-faced dwellings 

to get maximum sunlight. In 

line with the scale of the 

sur rounding fabric, the buildings 

of the site’s perimeter are alternatively 

four or five stories high, creating 

a diversified urban landscape, 

which uses the roofs as terraces. 

The elementary mechanism, 

a grid of single-faced dwellings, 

creates a diverse system by 

the instertion of a wide array of 

functions within the blocks: housing 

on an inner courtyard, cinemas, 

gyms, shops and supermarkets, 

offices or housing again in higher 

towers superimposed on the 

blocks. On a finer scale within the 

new fabric, the reuse of the row 

house logic allows for the insertion 

of spaces of activity in between 

the housing units. The result is a 

sequence of high, dense and diverse 

blocks within the perimeter. 

Density: 213.5 dwellings/ha 

Building Height: 4 to 25 floors 

Ground floor: courtyards/cinema/gym/ 

shops/supermarket/offices

36




Guido Teslo (IT)

38 

A variety of open courtyards gives 

new meaning to the street as place and 

space of community.



Christop HIESTAND (CH) 

Julian TRACHSEL (CH) 

Iana KOZAK (UA) 

Proposal 1B 

The densification of this neighborhood 

of Brussels must first aim 

at creating a more lively and inhabit 

ed urban space. In order to achieve 

this, public space is the weapon of 

choice. This proposal aims at creating 

a new hierarchy of city space 

where every part of the new fabric 

is directly connected to the scale 

of the city. 

Two Argentinean typologies 

are transferred to Brussels and 

adapted to the conditions of the site. 

While creating a strong frontage 

for the block and keeping its largescale 

identity, the internal typology 

creates various courtyards that 

punctuate the carpet-like structure 

and subdivide it into smaller units. 

Three different types of courtyards 

are shuffled together in this 

structure, creating human-scale 

architecture for different communities 

and standards of living. 

The hierarchy of narrow 

and wide courtyards reacts to the 

existing site and extends the 

surrounding streets into the block. 

As public space seeps into the 

structure and distributes the very 

compact fabric, the difference 

between street, square, courtyard 

and passageway is blurred into a 

continuous notion of simultaneous 

openness and intimacy. 


Building Height: 3–10 floors 

Ground floor: housing

40





Iana KOZAK (UA)

42 

In a dense superblock, diverse 

relations between public and private 

activate the surrounding fabric.



alejandra dominguez 

delucchi (AR) 

sandrine tonnor (BE) 

Proposal 1C 

More than bringing density, this 

experimentation focuses on the 

potential of housing to create places 

to live in, to shape streets and spaces 

and to integrate proximity and 

private life into an urban situation. 

The original Argentinean typology 

of “pasaje” is used as a starting point 

to bring life inside the hidden and 

inaccessible urban block. 

After translating its main 

structure—two blocks divided by 

a very narrow and intimate passage 

as main entrance from the street 

—into the scale of a “superblock,” 

the private/public relations are 

articu lated into three situations. The 

back-to-back setting is characterized 

by a strong perspective that reaches 

the center of the block directly and 

offers a different, more impersonal 

and generic view of the diverse 

situations of “street” and “typology” 

present in the other parts of the 

project. The back-to-front relation 

creates a different atmosphere. 

A greater distance between the 

volumes results in large public 

spaces for the inhabitants of the 

block and citizens in general. 

The most original situation is in 

the face-to-face setting, where 

voids in the building morphology 

create what are paradoxically the 

most intimate spaces, easy to be 

appropriated by inhabitants of the 

buildings. 

Finally, these different relations 

between the buildings and open 

space are sewn into the existing 

fabric, using the sense of place to 

activate the surroundings. In the 

“passages,” the services and publicly 

shared “rooms” produce a shared 

sense of belonging. 


Building Height: 2–5 Floors 


44



alejandra dominguez 

delucchi (AR) 

sandrine tonnor (BE)

46 

Hotspots of density, integrated through 

generous public spaces, allow for a 

new lifestyle in Brussels and become 

a new urban amenity.





Iana KOZAK (UA) 

Proposal 1D 

Not only by using large-scale 

buildings, but also by working on 

their optimal integration in the 

functioning of the city, this proposal 

aims at creating hotspots of density 

as focal points in the city. A very 

dense New York typology—the 

“carved house”—and its relation 

to public space in the grid-like 

organization of American urban 

fabric, are inserted in the heart of 

Brussels. The building is the block, 

surrounded by circulation axes. 

Beyond the introduction of 

these high-rise structures in the 

fabric, the design investigates the 

proportional relation of public 

space both to the buildings and the 

city. Smaller scale structures are 

placed as intermediaries between 

the extremely dense blocks and 

the existing fabric, also allowing 

light and openness to be constant 

qualities for the inhabitants of 

the high-rise and low-rise blocks. As 

the size scale of the carved house in 

relation to the existing city fabric 

automatically inscribes the project 

in a scale beyond the neighborhood, 

the proposal also assumes the 

role of new urban centrality. Large 

and open public spaces not only 

accommodate the inhabitants of 

the high-rise blocks, they become 

valuable open spaces for the 

compact urban fabric surrounding 

the site. These large squares 

punctuating the project can also 

function within the weekly market 

of Cureghem, allowing this activity 

to extend into the public space of 

the city and bring liveliness into this 

entire part of Brussels. 


Building Height: 3–20 Floors 


48





Iana KOZAK (UA)

50 

Site 2 

Cureghem 

Surface: 3 ha 

A former Shell depot, this block has 

for long been an empty lot in the 

city. A heavy-duty depollution of 

the soil, a bankrupt developer, and a 

never-ending struggle on the permit 

have consistently blocked any 

development on what has since then 

been nicknamed a “cursed block”. 

However, amenities are not 

lacking for this block. It forms the 

bridge between the Canal and the 

neighborhood of Cureghem, both 

visually and physically. Situated 

along a passage crossing the canal, 

right next to the quay of Biestebroeck 

where a sharp turn creates an 

axial perspective on the canal, the 

landscape value of the Cureghem 

Block is also highly strategic for 

the Canal zone as a whole. Future 

developments include the creation of 

a Regional Expressway (RER) station 

for Cureghem. The accessibility 

of the area is thus expected to 

drastically increase in the coming 

years, which implies the potential to 

function on a new scale in the city.



Cureghem

52



Cureghem

54 

Within a rigid grid, one repeated 

element creates a multiplicity of spaces, 

situations, and relations.



Antonio MINTO (IT) 

Sophie Mélix (DE) 

Proposal 2A 

In this project, density is reached 

by introducing a new rigid grid 

into the existing city structure. This 

grid opens up new perspectives 

throughout the block. It is very dense 

and made up of one single typology. 

Nevertheless, the positioning of the 

element in the grid creates a variety 

of outside spaces. 

The density and diversity of 

spaces is emphasized by different 

building heights throughout the 

grid. Where the grid reaches 

the outline of the site, the buildings 

are adapted to create exceptional 

situations. Hereby the typology 

is transformed along the existing 

streets and the new structure is 

emphasized due to the introduction 

of a new geometry. 

Other exceptional situations are 

formed where the grid is confronted 

with the existing buildings. 

The essence of the proposal 

is an investigation on the “grain” 

of density, as it does not at all 

imply the construction of gigantic 

buildings and large squares. Hence 

the buildings are compacted and 

multiplied on the site, so the public 

space surrounding them in its 

turn becomes sufficiently continuous 

to be perceived as one polymorph 

entity of smaller sub-spaces. 

The result is a vivid and compact 

neighborhood where public space 

creates a multiplicity of situations on 

building scale and a continuity on 

the neighborhood scale. 




56



Antonio MINTO (IT) 

Sophie Mélix (DE)

58 

A composition of large-scale volumes 

combines permeability toward 

the surroundings with surprising 

inner courtyards.



Denisse FLOREA (RO) 

Marrit WINKELER (NL) 

Proposal 2B 

The relationship with the existing 

traditional urban fabric is explored 

through the introduction of a different 

scale, inspired by the industrial 

buildings present in the area. The 

interesting factory buildings are 

preserved as components of a new 

composition of large volumes, 

creating certain permeability on the 

site. The new buildings introduce 

a new scale of dwelling into the 

neighborhood, as a response to 

the metropolitan landscape element 

that the canal creates in the city. 

The negative space of the large 

buildings thus opens up toward the 

canal and the immediate surroundings, 

and creates inner “urban 

courtyards” between the buildings. 

Although the proposed architecture 

is resolutely large-scale, the 

projects inner spaces create variety 

and provide proximity in terms of 

materiality, texture and fragility. 

The surprising inside space of the 

massive blocks are revealed on 

the ground floors, where urban 

activities connect the courtyards 

to the inner spaces in terms of 

scale and use. The tension between 

the volumes themselves as well as 

the tension between the old and 

new fabric creates urban spaces that, 

despite their bigness, are both 

highly urban and of a human scale. 



Ground floor: offices/ateliers

60



Denisse FLOREA (RO) 

Marrit WINKELER (NL)

62 

A strong axiality opens 

and extends the waterfront 

potential into the neighborhood.



nassim mehran (IR) 

jing zhang (CN) 

Proposal 2C 

Situated in an essentially 

working-class neighborhood, in the 

immediate proximity of the canal, 

this proposal deals with two questions: 

how to create dense forms 

of living within the city center, but 

also how to live within the existing 

industrial fabric and integrate it 

in a postindustrial era. 

As a first intervention, three 

parallel rows of dwellings are placed 

perpendicularly to the canal 

in order to bring permeability and 

visual continuity in the urban fabric, 

thus allowing the influence of the 

canal to extend deep into the fabric. 

These rigid axialities end in an 

irregular fashion toward the canal, 

where the limit between the site 

of intervention and the space 

of the canal is blurred into a large 

public square. 

Second, the industrial buildings 

on the site are preserved and given 

a new urban significance: a highrise 

tower on a three-story podium 

responds to the shape of these 

buildings to enclose a second, more 

privatized open space at the heart 

of the site. This second space serves 

as exterior space for the inhabitants 

of the tower building. 

The resulting project uses ar chi - 

tecture to manifest potenti alities 

that were already present on the site, 

bringing a new urban system into 

existence with minimal means. 

Density: 309 dwellings/ha 



64



nassim mehran (IR) 

jing zhang (CN)

66



Mihaela Meslec (RO) 

Paolo Oliva (IT) 

Proposal 2D 

Without falling into the pitfall of 

dogmatic reconstruction, this 

proposal attempts the paradox of 

staying in phase with the urban 

system of the surroundings while 

at the same time drastically 

rethinking it. 

Two urban blocks are recreated, 

divided by a new local street that 

crosses the site, extending the 

existing street pattern toward the 

canal. The blocks are then composed 

using a wide variety of buildings. 

What might seem at first glance as a 

random collection of unrelated buildings, 

reveals its internal com plex ity 

when looked at on architectural 

scale: the irregular shapes are carefully 

positioned in order to create a 

coherent form, trying to reinterpret 

the local mixed character with 

irregular typologies. 

The densification of the Brussels 

urban block not only goes through 

a choice of denser typologies. The 

new scale of the block and its components 

implies a wider logic for the 

urban block as coherent whole. 

From opposite corners, the heights 

of the buildings are decreasing 

and create a spatial tension, giving 

meaning to both blocks as intertwined 

entities: while the sharp 

angle of the small block becomes 

a strong high frontage for the project 

toward the canal, the larger, almost 

square block decreases in height 

to allow optimal views toward the 

canal from deep within the block to 

a maximal amount of dwellings. 

These multiple coherent 

interventions on the urban entity 

of the site automatically shape the 

same multiplicity in the situation 

of the dwellings. Different relations 

between the dwelling and the street, 

the dwelling and the courtyard as 

well as the dwellings among themselves 

allow great diversity in 

forms of living to exist within the 

same entity. 

Two dense urban blocks slowly reveal the 

subtle coherence of carefully positioned 

irregular shapes. 



Ground floor: housing/shops

68




Paolo Oliva (IT)

70 

Site 3 

UCL 


At the eastern limit of the Brussels- 

Capital Region, the Catholic 

University of Louvain-La-Neuve 

—one of the main universities 

in the country—has its Brussels 

campus. Hosting a university 

hospital and other faculties, its 

functionalist layout resulted in 

a conglomerate of buildings with 

numerous residual in-between 

spaces. This functional zone of 

the city can be easily accessed by 

car and metro, but has little to 

no interaction with its surroundings, 

consisting of suburban villas 

and undefined green spaces. 

Today it is possible to propel 

the campus to a new level of 

urbanity, both locally and globally, 

as it has all it takes to become a 

vibrant district of metropolitan 

Brussels. Not only does it host 

numerous university facilities, 

and its own metro station, it is also 

in the proximity of Brussels’ largest 

shopping centers and numerous 

office buildings. The densification 

of the UCL campus can thus result 

in a better use of the existing 

facilities, turning them into an 

amenity for the inhabitants, while 

building a new continuity with 

the surrounding city.



UCL

72



UCL

74 

0 

20 100 200 m



ARNO HOFER (AT) 

CATERINA NAGLIERI (IT) 

ROBBERT PEETERS (NL) 

Proposal 3A 

The UCL Campus has a peculiar 

logic based on the diversity of buildings 

and spaces, showing a certain 

quality in the continuous variation 

of external and internal spaces. On 

the other hand the area shows an 

undefined border to the neighboring 

single-family residential quarter, 

a border for now mostly used as 

parking area. Our purpose is to emulate 

the qualitative aspects of the 

campus logic and to make it more 

recognizable by clearly defining 

its borders. 

To achieve this, the strategy 

for densification relies on two principles: 

on the one hand mimicking 

the existing urban fabric not only 

from a morphological point of view 

but also in the disposal of the open 

spaces, and on the other hand defining 

the outer limits through the 

use of linear buildings. Our strategy 

hardly foresees the demolition of 

existing architecture. Furthermore, 

the west end is left free of constructions. 

This conscious act of nonbuilding 

creates a contrast with the 

newly densified district and hence 

characterizes it as a park for the 

district and the city as a whole. 

A wide array of building types 

are brought into the site: slabs in the 

western part, blocks in the central 

part close to the hospital blocks, lowrise 

courtyard buildings in the eastern 

part, whereas long linear types 

define the southern border. These 

different typologies bring both unity 

and diversity. As the density and 

size of buildings distinguishes the 

campus from its surroundings, the 

different typologies and circulation 

axes create a wide array of subentities, 

with different relation to 

the territory. 

By mimicking the campus building 

types, housing turns the campus 

into a hybrid district. 



Ground floor: hospital/university/school/ 

library/sports center/shops/housing

76



ARNO HOFER (AT) 

CATERINA NAGLIERI (IT) 

ROBBERT PEETERS (NL)

78 

The pattern of the surrounding suburbs 

extends onto the campus, and defines a 

new compacity.



Loes Martens (NL) 

Zuzanna Koltowska (PL) 

Proposal 3B 

While the campus model basically 

consists of large buildings in a 

wide-open space, the architecture 

of the student housing on the UCL 

site have the ambiguous aura of an 

oversized village. This seventies 

architecture forms the starting point 

to the densification of the campus, 

emphasizing this ambivalence 

between village and metropolis. 

Giancarlo de Carlo’s worker 

housing, a model that strongly refers 

to the image of single-family housing 

though reinterpreted in a more 

dense and collective way of living, 

is the single typology used on 

the campus. A play on the façades 

creates two distinctive entities in the 

public space, an urban atmosphere 

along circulation axes and open 

spaces, and a village atmosphere 

around more secluded courtyards. 

The focus on compactness 

rather than size transforms the 

spatiality of the campus; the wide 

undefined emptiness becomes a 

continuously intertwined network 

of streets and alleyways, of public 

squares and intimate courtyards. 

The flexibility of the typology and 

the topography of the site keep 

the feeling of living in close relation 

to the environment, with four 

façades opening up to numerous 

views in different directions 

and in relation to different spaces. 

This proposal demonstrates that, 

while keeping a closeness and 

intimacy of small-town life, it is 

possible to create a neighborhood 

about four times as dense as it 

used to be. 

Density: 66 dwellings/ha 


Ground floor: hospital/university/school/ 

library/sports center/shops/housing

80




Zuzanna Koltowska (PL)

82 

The strengthened axis creates a series of 

microcosms that induce more legibility 

and quality in the loose urban landscape.



Catherine PYCK (BE) 

Stefan PINTILIE (RO) 

Proposal 3C 

The current state of the UCL Campus 

can best be described as an unstructured 

variety of buildings, spread 

out all over the site. Neither the 

suburban houses nor the freestanding 

campus buildings manage to 

create any urban feeling or a sense 

of coherence between the existing 

elements. To densify this part 

of Brussels, a structuring of the site 

is first necessary. This is achieved 

through the creation of a “backbone” 

of development, concentrating 

new buildings alongside the main 

existing axis. 

One specific courtyard building 

on the site presents interesting 

architectural characteristics: it 

has a clear strictness, though it opens 

up to its surroundings and creates 

more intimate spaces. This preexisting 

onsite typology was used as 

a starting point for the development 

of the backbone for urbanity. 

The different courtyard buildings 

are positioned in such way that 

building façades face each other 

exactly and smaller transversal 

streets are created in between them. 

The first two stories of these 

apartment blocks are devoted to 

commercial spaces to create a 

strong relation between the street 

and the buildings. The height of 

the buildings differs on both sides 

of the street, according to the topography 

and existing surrounding 

buildings. On the lower side, the 

height of four to five stories relates 

to the existing houses, whereas 

on the upper side the building height 

is more related to the hospital and 

reaches up to eight to ten stories. 

Each building has a generous courtyard 

where residents can interact. 

These more intimate spaces have an 

inviting character toward the large 

green spaces behind the buildings, 

left untouched. 



Ground floor: hospital/university/ 

school/library/sports center/ 

shops/housinG

84



Catherine PYCK (BE) 

Stefan PINTILIE (RO)

86 

Site 4 

Erasme 


At the other extreme of the city, a 

second urban campus is situated, 

hosting functions like the Erasme 

hospital, the faculty of medicine 

of the Free University of Brussels 

(ULB), several research centers, as 

well as some big box-type commercial 

spaces and agricultural land. 

The landscape situation however 

is entirely different from the UCL 

campus in the east of Brussels. 

Even though the Erasme 

Campus lies on within the territory 

of the Brussels-Capital Region, it is 

cut off from the city by the highway 

ring and opens up visually towards 

the agricultural fields and the linear 

urbanization of Flanders. 

Its proximity to the ring and 

one of its exits make this entire 

area function as an entry into the 

South-West of Brussels by car, and 

the presence of a metro station as 

well as large urban accommodations 

give it potential both as an 

intermodal hub for entering a less 

car-oriented city, and as an active 

neighborhood in itself in the greater 

metropolitan conurbation.



Erasme

88



Erasme

90 

0 

20 100 200 m 

A new hybrid block typology 

brings both density and urbanity 

into a new gate for the city.



Arthur GOETINCK (BE) 

Tom JANSSENS (BE) 

Pauline VARLOTEAUX (FR) 

Proposal 4A 

Neither urban nor suburban, the 

Erasmus campus is presently 

a mainly utilitarian space on the 

outskirts of Brussels. Though this 

results in an unqualified space, 

it also brings an optimal accessibility, 

be it through road traffic or public 

transportation. The combination 

of optimal access and a clear 

inscription in a region-wide or 

even metropolitan scale for the site 

implies the possible definition 

of a clear border, a frame that can 

work as a gate for Brussels. 

As such, the site demands 

an other logic than classical commonplace 

urbanity. A new morphology 

confronts the campus and street 

logics to give structure to the area. 

Large platforms, containing a diversity 

of urban commodities and large 

parking areas, clearly define the 

street pattern while becoming the 

base for a set of housing towers. 

Each time, this base becomes 

an elevated semipublic space for the 

towers it hosts resulting in smaller 

entities made of two to four high-rise 

elements with a larger urban system. 

This clear landform distinguishes 

the city from the surrounding open 

agricultural landscape outside the 

frame, thus adding value to both 

by making them complementary 

elements of a limit. 




kindergarten/sports hall/shops/housing

92



Arthur GOETINCK (BE) 

Tom JANSSENS (BE) 

Pauline VARLOTEAUX (FR)

94 

A new linear development structures 

the campus and becomes a backbone 

for future development.



Mostafa MAHDY (EG) 

Zohal BASHARIAR (DE) 

Proposal 4B 

The Erasmus campus, located 

outside the city center in the middle 

of agricultural land, presents a 

blatant lack of coherence as 

buildings and roads alike seem to be 

floating in an indefinite emptiness. 

To restore a clear significance 

and sense of place, the project 

simultaneously increases the density 

of the campus and creates a coherent 

order between the existing buildings 

by creating new linear structures 

parallel to the main road. 

The existing axiality is emphasized 

by creating a continuous 

frontage with high-rise buildings 

along both sides of this axis. By 

the very concentrated intensification 

of urbanity along the road, 

metro station and metro railway, 

the axis becomes a welcoming 

avenue towards the capital, which 

prevents views of the surrounding 

emptiness, consciously ignoring the 

lack of definition behind the wall 

of buildings. 

Only one point along the way 

reveals the Potemkinesque essence 

of the proposal: an inflexion in 

the continuous frontage, creating 

a plaza along the axis, stages the 

emptiness of the surrounding landscape 

and reveals the scenographic 

gesture as an initiator of urbanity. 

In the long term, this opening and 

staging of the fields are an invitation 

for more, a questioning of the 

value of void and the necessity of 

its integration in the metropolitan 

landscape. 




kindergarten/sports hall/shops 

/housing

96



Mostafa MAHDY (EG) 

Zohal BASHARIAR (DE) 

0 

20 100 200 m

98 

Site 5 

Auderghem Shopping 


Amidst the housing fabric 

dominating this part of the city, 

a large monofuntional space 

acts as a mere quantitative service 

to the city inhabitants. Along an 

axis of intense circulation and 

the metro line, a large shopping mall 

clashes with some remains 

of housing fabric. The major part 

of the site however is filled with 

parking areas on several floors. 

Today, as pressure on the territory 

is ever increasing, such areas can be 

reimagined as sites for densification. 

To intervene on this site, we can 

explore new typologies and experiment 

hybrid cohabitation between 

housing, shopping and parking. 

Integrating different scales of appeal 

in an urban fabric that transcends 

the opposition between local and 

metropolitan function will make it 

possible to dissolve the conflicting 

discontinuities between city space 

and car space.



Auderghem Shopping

100



Auderghem Shopping

102 

A new compact, large-scale structure 

installs overall coherence between the 

existing urban fragments.



Giorgio RENZI (IT) 

Tim BRANS (NL) 

Proposal 5A 

The Auderghem Shopping area 

in Brussels consists of different 

parts, each with their own function, 

logic, morphology and scale: a 

typical Brussels street with single 

houses, a massive shopping mall, 

and a mixed-use area with dwellings 

and offices. 

To densify the area this logic 

of successive layers is taken as a 

principle of composition by introducing 

one additional large structure, 

carefully positioned in between the 

private back gardens of the single 

family houses and the public space 

at the site of the shopping mall. On 

the one side, a compact urban façade 

faces the shopping mall, while on 

the other the volume is interrupted 

and sequenced, reducing the 

apparent scale of the building. This 

treatment of the frontage allows for 

an easy transition from the large 

building of the shopping mall 

to the multiple small parcels of the 

Brussels fabric. 

The structure is developed out 

of a multiplied double tube structure, 

creating a series of interconnected 

open spaces. According to their 

positioning in relation to the surroundings 

and the buildings they 

might be facing, those open spaces 

offer different levels of privacy, 

from the intimate courtyard to 

the pocket public park. This articulation 

of the open space makes the 

transition from object to territory: 

the large, strict, almost graphic 

structure creates ever-different 

interactions with the surroundings, 

adapting to a varied context, 

and defining it on smaller scale. 


Building Height 2–8 floors 

Ground floor: shopping mall/housing

104



Giorgio RENZI (IT) 

Tim BRANS (NL)

106 

Importing an emblematic New York 

building demonstrates the capacity for 

densification of the site.



Filippo CATTAPAN (IT) 

Jean-Benoit HOUYET (BE) 

Proposal 5B 

The Auderghem site is a fragmented 

place, where housing faces a monofunctional 

commercial building, 

with little to no relation. In such 

cases of mutual ignorance, housing 

is often considered a victim, and 

the exceeding size of shopping 

structure is given the blame. This 

proposal is a critical questioning 

about scales and how density can 

transform common significance as 

much as the urban context. 

By superimposing the Waldorf 

Astoria on the existing shopping 

mall, a building of entirely unprecedented 

size in this part of Brussels, 

or Brussels in general, puts the 

notion of scale into a whole new 

perspective. The shopping mall, 

formerly considered a dominant 

structure, is reduced to the status 

of a simple annex building. In this 

conscious act of intense rescaling, 

the project offers a high social diversity, 

a high mix of uses and a new 

urban activity to this well-connected 

place. Consequently, it redefines 

the existing void as an intense, qualitative 

public space. 

As an extreme architectural 

proposal, its punctual and massive 

densification strategy through 

high-quality architecture doesn’t try 

to find any formal or dimensional 

connection with the context. As an 

almost platonic ideal of density, 

it simply imposes its remarkable 

presence and creates a new system 

of relations within the site, the 

neighborhood and the city. 


Building Height: 47 floors 

Ground floor: shopping mall/shops/ 

restaurants/spa/housing

108



Filippo CATTAPAN (IT) 

Jean-Benoit HOUYET (BE)

110 

The principles of traditional city 

fabric are scaled up, accommodating 

the new housing needs and 

generating a sequenced public space.



Pietro SALAMONE (IT) 

Emina ADILAGIC (BA) 

Proposal 5C 

Starting from the existing urban 

fabric, this proposal scales up 

the single-family row house to 

accommodate the scale of the commercial 

buildings and the higher 

density required to accommodate 

demographic growth. In the existing 

fabric, a row house can be directly 

identified to its inhabitant, while the 

urban scale is achieved through a 

continuous frontage from row house 

to row house, thus forming an 

urban block. When up-scaling this 

model however, a whole new 

relation between the dweller and 

his home needs to be conceived. 

As the urban scale now exists in 

each one of the row buildings, it is 

not their homogeneity, but, on 

the contrary, their diversity which 

needs to be emphasized. 

This is why the morphology 

of row house fabric is inverted: 

a straight façade on the back and 

a moved façade on the front. The 

Buenos Aires and New York 

typologies alternate wide interior 

courtyards and long perpendicular 

corridors. As every building has 

its own proportion and propulsion 

into the public space, they become 

clearly discernable urban forms 

to which the inhabitants can relate 

as “their” building. Also, this dented 

façade defines a new kind of public 

space, with a central circulation 

space linking different urban 

rooms of different dimensions and 

intimacy. These very different relations 

between building and public 

space allow the creation of varied 

situations on the ground floor. With 

commercial spaces, ateliers, offices, 

a school, a very diversified and surprising 

urban life emerges. 



Ground floor: shopping mall/school/ 

shops/offices/ateliers

112



Pietro SALAMONE (IT) 

Emina ADILAGIC (BA)

114 

A strong perimeter isolates a dense 

yet intimate urban fabric, reconciling 

different scales of the city.



David de KOOL (NL) 

Filippo PIOVENE (IT) 

Proposal 5D 

This plan deals with the relation of 

neighborhood scale and city scale, 

which is here related to the question 

of the inside and the outside of a 

huge block in the suburbs of Brussels. 

The proposal makes a clear distinction 

between its relation to the 

city and its inner organisation as a 

dense, compact neighborhood. 

The outside perimeter of the 

block extends the existing northern 

frontage of row houses to form a 

border of public program consisting 

of the redesigned supermarket, along 

with new shops of different sizes, 

offices, some bars and restaurants, 

and parking. A thin, translucent, 

fence-like building on the two 

sides, this border becomes a robust 

mass in the south point of the 

triangular block. 

The infill is conceived out of 

back-to-back courtyard apartment 

buildings, bordering other buildings 

on all but one façade. Different 

typologies make the dwelling size 

vary from relatively small 80sqm 

layouts to enormous 300sqm 

apartments, all organized around 

one or more courtyards, creating an 

introverted and intimate residence. 

The new fabric is laid out to 

form a variation of defined urban 

spaces: a sequence of streets 

and squares, composing the canvas 

for a distinctive neighborhood. 

The neighborhood and the edge 

meet in different ways according 

the side of the block. The clash 

between the orderly layout of dwellings 

and the east perimeter generate 

a series of public squares and spaces 

of entrance, while the western 

border is in direct contact with 

the dwellings, themselves opening 

toward a larger public square. 



Ground floor: Shopping mall/shops/ 

restaurants/bars/offices

116



David de KOOL (NL) 

Filippo PIOVENE (IT)

118 

An Exercise in 

Urban Architecture 

Brussels will need to densify 

and increase its housing stock. 

As evident as this might sound, 

it is only today that this seems 

widely accepted. It is a new 

commonplace. 

Leading the International 

Master Class “120% 

Brussels” has a lot to do with 

commonplaces that are not 

yet commonly accepted. The 

question of densification has 

always had a simplifying effect: 

quantitative needs often lead 

to a singular response that is 

then deployed throughout the 

city. The core of our endeavor 

was to undo density from 

this diagrammatic, often 

modernist imperative. This is 

not evident within the limited 

time frame of a master class. 

As a format of teaching, such 

studios mostly suffer from the 

opposite tendency. Pushing the 

production during two weeks 

of work often leads to a level 

of abstraction, to illustrations 

of possible arguments, and 

not to clear proposals for the 

material and spatial quality of 

the urban environment. That 

is precisely what we wanted 

to avoid, by steering the work 

to very tangible incarnations 

of ideas. Or, to put it stronger: 

“architecture must do the job.” 

To focus on architecture 

in the framework of a master 

class about the transformation 

of the urban fabric requires a 

lot of a priori decisions. The 

“120% Brussels” master class is 

heavily defined by these and we 

are proud of this. The master 

class focused on compositions 

in plan, and on urban 

(architectonical) perspectives. 

It allowed us to push the urban 

question beyond density 

diagrams and numbers, and 

to present fragments of a 

possible ‘densified Brussels’. 

What you see is what you get: 

precise layouts and images of 

these future urban realities. 

The propositions allow us to 

explore, understand and verify 

what quantities and densities 

could become as urban 

environments. 

One could say that 

our operation is purely 

morphological. But that is



Kersten Geers, 

Office KGDVS 

Emanuel Christ, 

Christ & Gantenbein 

Architects 

only half true. By consciously 

limiting the tools for the studio 

to work with, by providing a 

limited set of pre-selected, 

found types, the studio was 

able to also tackle questions 

regarding the urban structure, 

the urban fabric, the building 

sizes and (public) spaces, and 

other urban programs. There 

is not a singular project that 

presents a completely irrelevant 

or unworkable hypothesis. By 

designing with architectural 

and urban fragments that are 

known to all, the studio was 

able to touch upon many more 

issues that are at play in such 

major urban transformations: 

the sizes of the housing and 

building units, the experience 

of these sizes from the public 

space of the city, the relation 

between common spaces 

and private spaces inside the 

proposed building envelope, 

etcetera. 

Each canonical building 

or real piece of ‘urban 

architecture’, no matter where 

it is built, embodies and 

materializes an idea of living 

that often challenges our 

pre-conceived ideas of housing 

in the city. The students 

were asked to use only the 

pre-selected buildings and 

types, and were therefore 

limited in their field of play. 

The set of examples was 

carefully composed as a palette 

of ideas for dense urban living. 

This makes it the perfect 

international toolbox to test 

the capacity of the specific 

urban fabric, and to advance 

alternatives for the common 

type of urban densification in 

brownfield areas. The toolbox 

is what allows the participants 

to undo density from the all too 

simple idea of perfectly new 

and shiny neighborhoods. 

Another defining 

element is that the set of 

reference buildings was 

mostly composed of (early) 

19th century building types: 

urban buildings with a strong 

material quality, built before 

the dogma of aestheticized 

modernism started to prevail. 

These types allow us to think 

beyond the commonly accepted

120 

pseudo-science of quality, 

space and light that is so 

characteristic of our post-war 

social housing projects (also 

in Brussels). Shifting the focus 

to architectural references 

that define the urban quality 

by their material quality, 

rather than by their rational 

composition of repetitive 

housing units, is a form of 

going back to the future. Such 

housing schemes were built 

exactly 100 years ago in large 

metropolises like New York, 

Buenos Aires and Hong Kong 

(all three part of the toolbox). 

Their strength is that they 

allow for high-density urban 

fabrics, while establishing a 

relatively luxurious quality 

of living, often in (slightly) 

abandoned, central urban 

neighborhoods. 

Essential in all of these 

operations (and for our Brussels 

case) is a sense of disconnect 

between the urban plan, 

its suggested density and 

envisioned quality of living on 

the one hand, and on the other 

hand, the reconsideration of 

the role of architecture, of the 

quality of the building, as a 

decisive factor for the quality of 

the neighborhood. Such urban 

artifacts are opportunities for 

superior architecture. They 

organize metropolitan living, 

and replace the uniqueness of 

top locations and spectacular 

views by intrinsic architectural 

qualities such as ceiling height, 

surface per unit, orientation, 

etcetera. As a specific part of 

the history of architecture, 

these specific designs for 

dense, inner city living enable 

us to imagine densities with 

qualities, which are both 

unthinkable otherwise. 

Each of these operations 

is unconditionally urban. 

Shamelessly urban even, in that 

they manifest their collective 

nature so overtly. They 

sustain and manifest a form of 

citizenship through the shared 

qualities of the architecture. 

In that sense, the 

topic of study and ambition 

for this master class was 

precisely the unraveling and 

understanding of the DNA of



Kersten Geers, 

Office KGDVS 

Emanuel Christ, 

Christ & Gantenbein 

Architects 

this collective architecture 

and its specific set of qualities 

that could be transposed to 

the Brussels fabric: the quality 

of the common spaces, the 

appearance of the buildings, 

the structuring of public 

spaces and the relation to the 

surrounding urban fabric. 

The selected foreign urban 

fragments function as a set 

of tangible urban forms that 

help grasp the potential of 

development for Brussels. This 

method and these references 

proved to be the necessary 

allies for an exploration of 

a qualitative densification 

of the city. It allowed us to 

present 17 real projects for five 

fragments of Brussels. Each 

proposal reveals a particular 

idea, a particular soul, a unique 

potential quality. 

The method could be 

criticized as very narrowminded, 

as overly simplistic. 

That would be a mistake. 

The projects are more than 

simplistic scenarios. They 

are carefully developed and 

present hypotheses for living 

in Brussels, for rearranging 

these particular areas, in a 

way most schemes never quite 

succeed. Their unavoidable 

particularity is the product of 

the precise selection and the 

decisions that were made prior 

to starting the design work. For 

better or worse, they present 

proper alternatives for and 

architecture of the city, ready to 

be debated. 

If there is one intention 

of which this master class 

is a testimony, other than 

our deep interest in this 

capital of Europe and its 

housing problem, it is to put 

architecture back on the 

agenda. Urban architecture 

is what can guarantee the 

quality of any urban plan, for 

any community and ultimately 

for any metropolis. Brussels 

cannot do without architecture 

and without the necessary 

architectural research and 

debate. 

Kersten Geers 

Emanuel Christ

122



CHRIST & GANTENBEIN 

ARCHITECTS 

Master Profiles 

Christ & Gantenbein Architects, 

Basel, CH 

Active in multiple fields from 

private commission to multiple 

large-scale masterplans, Christ & 

Gantenbein Architects base 

their project of housing complexes 

on a thorough knowledge of typological 

aspects and on the multiple 

variations and filiations of a similar 

design principle. In association 

with ETH Zürich where both partners 

teach, and the Amt für Städtebau 

of the City of Zürich, they developed 

and published a research on the 

territorial develop ment of Zürich, 

based on the concept of “Typological 

Transfer”, experimenting the capacity 

of specific foreign typo logies to be 

reinterpreted in the Zürich context.

124



OFFICE KERSTEN GEERS 

DAVID VAN SEVEREN 

Master Profiles 

Office Kersten Geers 

David Van Severen, Brussels, BE 

While every attempt at making 

architecture seems to drift off 

in rhetorics of programmatic organization 

and ironic provocation, 

form and space as such have become 

a rare good. The litteral architecture 

of Office Kersten Geers David 

Van Severen aims for a phenomenological 

experience, perhaps despite 

of its program. Office KGDVS quickly 

established a foreground position 

with projects such as the Kortrijk 

Xpo or the Belgian Pavilion at the 

Venice Biennale in 2008. They were 

awarded the Silver Lion for their 

contribution to the 2010 Venice 

Biennale, “7 Rooms / 21 Perspectives” 

with photographer Bas Princen.

126 

Organization 

Architecture Workroom Brussels 

is a think-and-do tank that 

partners with public authorities, 

private parties and cultural 

institutions. They conceive and 

coordinate prospective design 

studies and programs that advance 

innovative responses to societal 

challenges. 

Architecture Workroom positions 

design and designers within 

the broader public debate through 

ateliers, exhibitions, publications, 

seminars and a residency program. 

Its aim is to contribute to an international 

exchange and spur innovation 

in architecture and city making. 

Participants 

Emina Adilagic (BA) 

graduated in 2009 from the Faculty of 

Architecture, University of Sarajevo. 

She is currently an intern at the 

Municipal Department of Physical 

Planning and Construction. 

Zohal Bashariar (DE) 

graduated Bachelor of Arts in 2009 in 

Fachhochschule Frankfurt am Main. 

She is currently studying in the Dessau 

Institute of Architecture in Germany. 


graduated in Bioengineering before 

expanding her field to architecture in 

the University of Ghent. Her master 

thesis investigates public space design 

in Brussels. 

Tim Brans (NL) 

is student in architecture and urban 

design at the Eindhoven University of 

Technology, and an assistant professor 

in the first year design studios at the 

same university. 

Filippo Cattapan (IT) 

graduated from the IUAV university 

of Venice. After working with 

Salottobuono he became an independent 

architect and graphic designer. 

He is an assistant professor at the 

Politecnico di Milano.



David de Kool (NL) 

graduated in architecture and urban 

design at the Eindhoven University 

of Technology in 2011. He has been 

a tutor of typological analysis of 

dwellings, and worked at Hild und K 

Architekten. 

Alejandra Dominguez 

Delucchi (AR) 

graduated in 2010 from the 

Universidad de Buenos Aires. Since 

then she has travelled the globe, 

participating to various workshops, 

and started to volunteer as architect 

at the administration of national 

parks of Argentina. 

Denisse Florea (RO) 

graduated in 2009 from the Ion 

Mincu University of Architecture and 

Urbanism in Bucharest. 

She has since then worked in 

various architecture firms, both 

in Bucharest and Brussels. 

Arthur Goetinck (BE) 

is studying architecture at the 

University of Ghent since 2007 

and a passionate follower of the 

architectural culture scene 

nation-wide. 

Christoph Hiestand (CH) 

is studying architecture at the ETH 

in Zürich. 

Arno Hofer (AT) 

graduated in 2011 from TU 

Eindhoven. He has since then 

participated in various workshops 

and gained experience in an 

Italian architectural office, mainly 

involved in small housing units. 

Jean-Benoit Houyet (BE) 

graduated in 2009 from the ISA 

Saint-Luc in Brussels. He has since 

been an intern in, among others, 

OZON architectes. 

Tom Janssens (BE) 

graduated in 2011 from the School of 

Sciences and Art Sint-Lucas in Ghent. 

He has been an intern at, among 

others, FabriK G architects and Beel- 

Achtergael Architects. 

Zuzanna Koltowska (PL) 

is an architecture student at 

ASK Warsaw. She has participated in 

various workshops and competitions, 

among them InDeSem 2011 workshop 

and the competiton for the WW2 

museum in Gdansk, Poland. 

Iana Kozak (UA) 


Department of Architecture in 

Prydniprovs’ka State Academy of 

Civil Engineering and Architecture, 

Ukraine. She has earned several 

mentions and awards in student 

competitions. 

Mostafa Mahdy (EG) 

graduated in March 2007 from the 

University of Minia, Faculty of Fin 

arts, Architecture Department in 

Cairo, Egypt. He is currently studying 

the Master programme at the Dessau 

Institute of architecture.

128 


is studying architecture and urban 

design at the Eindhoven University of 

Technology. She has worked 

at engineering office Movares, and 

is currently a teacher-assistant 

in Eindhoven. 

Nassim Mehran (IR) 

graduated in 2009 from the Tehran 

University of Art and is currently 

studying at the Dessau Institute 

of Architecture in Germany. She’s 

been active in several agencies 

and as assistant professor at Ahvaz 

University. 

Sophie Mélix (DE) 

is studying architecture and urban 

design at the University of Karlsruhe 

as well as the Eindhoven University 

of Technology, and has contributed 

to the work of several architecture 

practices. 


graduated in Architecture and 

Urban Planning in Romania before 

starting studies in Urban Design 

at the Eindhoven University 

of Technology, of which she is to 

graduate in 2012. 

Antonio Minto (IT) 


Università IUAV di Venezia and 

the Faculdade de Arquitectura 

da Universidade do Porto. He has 

collaborated with several offices in 

Portugal, Italy and Switzerland, 

Caterina Naglieri (IT) 

studied in Italy and Portugal before 

concluding a PhD in Environmental 

Design at Sapienza University 

in Rome. Along with her university 

career, she has been an awarded participant 

in several ideas competitions 

worldwide. 

Paolo Oliva (IT) 

graduated from the IUAV in Venice 

and the AAM of Mendrisio. Since 

then he has worked as a collaborator 

of Gabinete de Arquitectura Solano 

Benitez. 

Stefan-Radu Pintilie (RO) 

is studying at the Faculty of 

Architecture “G.M. Cantacuzino” 

of Iasi, Romania. He has participated 

in various workshops, among them 

InDeSem 2011 and the 10th Sibiu 

Summer University. 

Filippo Piovene (IT) 

graduated in Architecture at IUAV 

University in 2011. He has been a 

regular participant in international 

workshops, and has collaborated with 

several architectur practices, among 

which Salottobuono. 

Robbert Peeters (NL) 

is currently graduating at the 

Eindhoven University of Technology. 

He has worked in the architecture 

office Grosfeld van der Velde 

and is an awarded participant to 

architecture competitions.



Catherine Pyck (BE) 

is studying Urban Architectural 

Design at the School of Sciences 

and Art Sint-Lucas in Ghent 

and the University of Oulu, Finland. 

She has been an intern at NU 

architectuuratelier. 

Giorgio Renzi (IT) 

is studying at the IUAV in Venice. 

He has been a participant to several 

international workshops, and a regular 

collaborator of architecture practice 

Salottobuono in Milan. 

Pietro Salamone (IT) 

graduated from the IUAV in Venice. 

Since then he has worked as a 

collaborator of architecure practices 

Salottobuono and Office KGDVS. 

Guido Tesio (IT) 

graduated in 2011 from the Politecnico 

di Milano. Since then, he has been an 

assistant professor and has worked in 

various architecture practices, among 

them Baukuh and Office KGDVS. 

Sandrine Tonnoir (BE) 

graduated in 2009 from the ISACF-La 

Cambre in Brussels. She has since 

been active as assistant professor 

and architect, and worked on a 

metropolitan vision for Brussels in 

2040 as a collaborator at Karbon 

Architects. 

Julian Trachsel (CH) 

is studying architecture at the ETH in 

Zürich. He is currently working 

as Research Assistant in ETH, for the 

Typological Transfer Project by Christ 

& Gantenbein, exhibited at the 5th 

International Architecture Biennale 

Rotterdam. 

Pauline Varloteaux (FR) 

is currently graduating at the ENSAP 

in Bordeaux, where she is assistant 

professor. She has participated in various 

international workshops, and 

has collaborated with various offices, 

among them Bureau Bas Smets. 

Marrit Winkeler (NL) 

graduated in 2010 from the University 

of Technology in Eindhoven. 

She has been nominated for the 

Dutch national Archiprix 2011 and 

is currently working at WillemsenU 

architects. 

Jing Zhang (CN) 

graduated in Architecture Design 

from Huazhong University of Science 

and Technology and in Architecture 

and Urban culture from the Eindhoven 

Univesity of Technology. He is 

currently design assistant at Sciskew 

Collaborative.

130 

Jury 


Joachim Declerck is co-founder and 

program director of Architecture 

Workroom Brussels. From 2008 till 

2010, he directed the professional 

development program at the Berlage 

Institute in Rotterdam. He was 

co-curator of the 3rd IABR and the 

exhibition A Vision for Brussels (both 

in 2007). He was curator of Building 

for Brussels. Architecture and Urban 

Transformation in Europe (Bozar, 

2010) and the 5th IABR, Making City. 

He is vice-president of the Regional 

Development Commission of the 

Brussels Capital Region. 

Michiel Dehaene 

is an associate professor at the Ghent 

University of Technology. After 

obtaining the degree of Civil Engineer- 

Architect at KU Leuven, he worked on 

the Piano Regolatore General for Bergamo 

at office Secchi Viganò, before 

graduating at Harvard University’s 

Graduate School of Design as a Master 

of Architecture in Urban Design. In 

2002 he completed a PhD investigating 

the role of survey in the development 

of British town planning. He is coeditor 

of Heteropia and the city: public 

space in a postcivil society (2008). 

Mona Farag 

studied architecture at the Technische 

Universität Karlsruhe. She was active 

in several renowned offices in the 

Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland 

before joining Christ & Gantenbein 

Architects in 2002. She has been 

an associate of Christ & Gantebein 

since 2007. 

Eric Lapierre 

Architect DPLG, critic, architectural 

historian, Eric Lapierre opened 

his office in Paris in 2000. The office 

takes a stance against the formalistic 

and spectacular architecture generated 

by the contemporary version of 

capitalism. Eric Lapierre works on the 

possibility of creating contemporary 

building that are not informed by marketing 

values. That’s why 

his work questions convention, tradition, 

innovation and banality. 

Freek Persyn 

is a partner in Brussels-based 

51N4E, founded in 1998. He studied 

architecture at Sint-Lucas School 

of Architecture in Brussels and the 

Dublin Institute of Technology. 

In 2004, 51N4E was awarded the 

prestigious Rotterdam Maaskant 

Award for Young Architects. Parallel 

to his professional activities at 

51N4E, he is an assistant professor 

at the University of Ghent, a visiting 

critic and studio master at the 

Berlage Institute in Rotterdam and 

a visiting professor at the Academy 

of Architecture in Mendrisio, 

Switzerland. 


is member of the Architecture and 

Urbanism section in the cabinet 

of the Secretary of State Emir Kir. 

Anne-Sophie Walazyc 

is affiliated to monuments and sites 

within the Cabinet of the Minister- 

President of the Brussels-Capital 

Region Charles Picqué.



Colophon 

Graphic design 

Project Projects, New York 

Photography 

Jeroen Verrecht 

Thanks to 

Renaud Chaput 

Chris Cheng-Huan Wu 

Jan de Vylder 

Wim Embrechts , 

Prem Krishnamurthy 


Géry Leloutre 

Thierry Mercken 

Benoit Moritz 

Anna Rieger 

Eefje Vloeberghs 

Bety Waknine 

Anne-Sophie Walazyc




Table of Contents 

Foreword 


A Laboratory on the 

Architecture of the City 

Site 1 

D’Ieteren Block 

Site 2 

Cureghem 

Site 3 

UCL 

Site 4 

Erasme 

Site 5 

Auderghem Shopping 

An Exercise in Urban 

Architecture 

Profiles 

04 

10 

14 

30 

50 

70 

86 

98 

118 

122

Master Class 120% Brussels

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?