For me, the pedestrian, the great Brussels' central pedestrian is extremely important in the history of the city center of Brussels. Why ? Because for the first time and in such a dramatic way, I would say, we realize that a public space is not only a place of mobility, was it sustainable, was it durable, but is also a place, at least as much, a place of pleasant stillness. And so, many local residents, many passers-by, many visitors realized the fun one could have by occupying this public space, by strolling there, by staying still for a while, by chatting there without being constantly disturbed by noise and by car odors. And so, to me, that is a very important thing. Obviously this is only a small space over all of the Brussels Region but it made noise and there are already now redevelopment underway or planned for several other municipal places and several other places in Brussels. So I think it's really something which must affect not only places but also the streets of our entire city, streets that, too, must cease to be in a priority places where we move quickly to get from one place to another in order to be places where we can stay to talk with others, to let our children play. So about this issue of understanding the general context in which appears the pedestrian project it seems to me important to remember, even briefly, some trends that seem to me decisive and major. It's economically incontestably the idea that historic city centers, especially here, must be able to give a new appeal in a jet of competition with peripheral centers. It's how city centers redefine their atmospheres, their qualities to ensure the attractiveness, that is sometimes threatened by a strong competition from the peripheral centers. That is perhaps a first general line on an economic stand point. Socially, I think it's interesting too to note that overall the policies of the city, of the urban renewal, of the consideration of the importance of urban quality must be understood in a context that is of a weakening of the policies of the income redistribution. In the global context of trade, there is undoubtedly more constraints and difficulties to organize social cohesion via income redistribution. And therefore, city policies are playing an increasingly important role to ensure, to induce forms of social cohesion, of conviviality, of living together. And so, there is an important point at this level that is given to city policies. The development of public spaces therefore participates ... And thus improvements of public spaces to pedestrian or semi-pedestrian, clearly take part of this trend. Third element is of course, the environmental dimension. I basically take back the three spheres of sustainable development, the environmental dimension, which aims tp seek to develop the least polluting modes of transport, the least expensive, therefore, in terms of resources and emissions. And so it is obviously also in relation with health issues, so gives more place to weak users who can practice and exercise. So here are also major public health issues. So it all also contributes to the understanding in this general context to say that finally, at the political level itself, there is no doubt in Brussels a sort of a political momentum at the level of the city of Brussels, which allows to understand that there is a shared and common vision between the different parties, personalities, who are currently in power in the city of Brussels because it basically is a project which dates back many years, this idea of transforming the central boulevards, and above all the central boulevard, but also to re-articulate the boulevards to the nearby neighborhoods. This is a project that dates back several years, which today, here, looks ready to go to something that would be this pedestrian. No doubt we should put quotation marks around the pedestrian, insofar considering that the accessibility by car is allowed for residents, for the elderly, for people with reduced mobility, to taxis, etc it is probably in a layout that will be further situated somewhere near a semi-pedestrian shared space. We'll see exactly where to place the cursor but we must also agree on this. But I am convinced that in all residential areas of cities there are ways to restore the hierarchy that should really prevail in all of these places, which is as follows, which is already done in some places of the world: a street, a space between the houses must be first a place where children can play; secondly, a place where vehicles may be parked; and only thirdly a place where cars can move to go from their home region, their starting point to where they can park. For me, it's the hierarchy in a residential area. And when you have this hierarchy, the relationship between people is transformed. A merchant, resident of the city told me that when the pedestrian was created, suddenly she began to breathe for the first time since long ago. And she took time to talk with her neighbors. And to me, that's it. That's the transformation, the change in hierarchy in the use of public space. It is also a transformation of relationships between people, because if children play in the streets, parents speak with each other and collusion will establish solidarity, collaboration. That's a city transformed by conversion of the mobility mode. On the specific issue of challenges to meet to pursue this approach, I think there is undoubtedly a sociological issue which is to make the center of Brussels an urban space where the Brussels-based company can do society so to speak, where everyone feels somewhere equally at home. Today, Brussels lacks those places. No doubt that Brussels is a city of neighborhoods, made of too many neighborhoods and not of enough centers. I think there is a sociological issue of social diversity on this issue of living together that arises here. And the vision scope of pedestrian poles is part of this idea of social diversity, a place that would be attractive and that would interest all of Brussels. That certainly is a question. A second issue is the city model thaht we want to defend today for this rehabilitation of historic centers. I think the idea here is scope to develop a city model inhabited, an inhabitad center, so a mix of uses, functions. So the center of Brussels will not be a shopping mall in competition with other shopping malls, but will be of a living space shared by inhabitants, external users, employees, strollers, students, and so on. So there it really is, I think, this city model which also underlies this proposal. It is important to say it, compared to other projects of city centers, even European, that sometimes tend toward too much monofunctionality. A third element, to me it seems, compared with the stakes, is the challenge of mobility, undoubtedly. The boulevard would allow to <i> bypass </ i>, I would say, the weakest link of the inner ring, which is the west side link, along the canal. The central boulevard would allow to <i> bypass </ i> that. From the moment we limit transit, very clearly here, with the pedestrian project it must be ensured that the movement of traffic, even though we can aim for a reduction of the car pressure it must in any case be ensured that this displacement finds its place in a redefinition of the crown, belt, of the heart of Brussels. And that is obviously an important issue that must be resolved for the municipal and regional authorities from elsewhere. This is an issue that clearly arises at both levels. And finally, I'll point perhaps a final challenge that seems interesting and that is the issue of time management. I mentioned briefly that some users can access the center. I have not mentioned, for example, suppliers who can come in from this hour to that hour in the morning, that some users may be able to park on certain streets sometimes. We can already see that in the Rue Neuve there is an improvement, a development that was proposed whereas before Rue Neuve was pedestrian 24/24, 7/7. Today and before the pedestrian project, it was adapted with a differentiated temporal management regime as cars, people, users could use it for parking at night to avoid a series of problems particularly linked to the insecurity of these places and so on. So I think the question of learning the differentiated management in times of public space will arise, is already arising. And this is a particularly interesting political issue. It will also manage the issue, in terms of time frames, of urban events, nocturnal nuisances, and so on. All this is part of this difficulty, at least these new issues that arise in a context of public space that somehow puts society face to face with itself. So society is once again engaged with itself. For these dynamic to extend, one will have to realize thaht it does not apply only to public spaces which can be assimilated to public places. It can also be applied to the streets. So that means it will be needed to also establish which will often be difficult, a form of differentiation between different types of blocks, streets that will continue to serve primarily for passing cars and other vehicles and then the streets that will be primarily places where residents can meet, can have activities, can plant trees and so forth. And so it obviously demands to act locally in these places, it requires thinking broadly at the entire agglomeration and then resolve the inevitable tensions, inevitable conflicts, because what is in the collective interest is not necessarily in the immediate interest of every inhabitant, of each resident, of each household who live in a given city.
