Problems and objectives

Beliris is looking for a multidisciplinary team to respond to three major challenges in relation to the redevelopment of Boulevard Emile Bockstael:

• improve safety for all by complying with Good-Move and reducing car speeds;
• combat heat islands by improving and strengthening landscape infrastructure and managing rainwater;
• improve the quality of public space while taking into account the commercial dynamics of the neighborhood.

The perimeter of the mission, from Place Alexandre Pouchkine to Rue des Horticulteurs, is seen as an addition of 3 sections, each presenting very different singularities and development profiles. The redevelopment of the boulevard must be coherent while meeting the specific development needs of each section.

History and context

The Bockstael district has evolved a lot in recent years and it's not over yet! As part of the sustainable neighborhood contract, numerous projects have seen the light of day such as Place Bockstael, the line 28 park, Rue Fransman, and the pocket parks. It is now the turn of Boulevard Bockstael to get a makeover.

The boulevard is one of the main axes of the district, on which different mobility is organized in a practical manner. However, even if each function represented occupies a distinct place, we cannot say that only the functional layout guarantees quality for the public space. The redevelopment of Boulevard Emile Bockstael is an opportunity to rethink the sharing and quality of public space, where, today, motor vehicles and parking occupy a large part of the space, and where greenery, comfort stay, the quality of travel in active modes takes second place.

Organizing, supporting and financing organizations

Beliris, The City of Brussels

Recruitment and selection of participants

A citizen panel of 7 people is recruited based on proactive individual contact. It is made up of 3 association representatives (Box120, Nekkersdal, Maison de la Création), 1 school (Leopold premier), 2 local residents, 1 trader.

Methods and tools used

The deliberation within the open jury takes place as follows:

• Each architectural office presents its project.
• Jury members and citizens ask questions.
• After the various presentations of the different projects by the design offices, citizens indicate their preferred choice among themselves (for information only).
• A first exchange takes place between jury members and citizens, during which technical elements of the presentations are discussed. This discussion makes it possible to unanimously reject 2 proposals.
• In order to align citizens with the remaining proposals, they each award 3 stars to the 3 remaining proposals, before continuing the discussion with the other members of the jury.
• The 3 proposals are discussed again by the full jury, listing their advantages.
• This will lead to the final decision.

What happened: processes, interactions and participation

Here are the steps of the participatory process:

Mid-September : citizen mobilization

05/10/2023 : citizen panel meeting: familiarization with the mission, explanation of how the Open Jury works.

11/30/2023 : citizen panel meeting: presentation of offer summaries, preparation of questions to be asked during the jury.

07/12/2023 : open jury

Influence, results and effects

The decision within the jury is made by consensus. This means that each stakeholder has a voice and it is up to each person to argue why they choose one or the other option presented. This process allows you to fully understand the arguments of others and to reconsider your own initial choice, after reading the offers and after listening to the presentations.

Since a citizen panel was involved in this decision-making, most architectural offices also offered to work with a citizen panel. This is also the case for thee office retained.

Analysis and lessons learned

Without publicity measures, it was difficult to mobilize citizens.

In order to prepare citizens, they had access to summaries of the offers, through reading posters. They did not have access to the full offers, in order to avoid a possible leak. As a result, it was not easy to understand the offers.

An ambitious choice was made in relation to the offers presented. It is subsequently important that this choice is not only projected onto the members of the panel. A deliberation process is not easy to explain. In communication, there will be a risk of validation of the choice by explaining that a citizen panel was associated with the decision (risk of exploitation)

external links

https://bma.brussels/bockstael/