What’s the deal with these ‘fake’ floors in Belgian houses (more specifically in cities like Antwerp & Ghent). I keep bumping into them!

40 comments

  1. To avoid an eyesore where the height of houses randomly goes up and down, many cities regulate the building facade’s height. So if you don’t need that second floor, this is a solution.

  2. > I keep bumping into them!

    Try walking on the sidewalk on the groundlevel.

    On a serious note: I have never seen one myself tbh. Looks weird.

  4. From the picture I figured the 2nd floor was being rebuilt/renovated? The side of the house next to it seems to be wrapped in that black plastic which normally is only temporary?

  6. Never saw this in my life tbh. and i live in ghent.

    but some parts have very strict facade rules, and they probably had to be equal heights as their neighbors. This was most likely the cheapest option to be correct with the regulations.

  7. Go ring the bell and ask the owners. Im curious myself.
    I have seen the same around Borsbeek. Made me think they demolished only the upper part but not sure.

  8. With old buildings you are often not allowed to change the façade. However this monstrosity doesn’t look anything like a historically significant architecture we need to preserve.

  9. You soletimes find it in the mid century areas of Antwerp. It´s not that common though.

    I doubt this was because of regulation. There are height differences all around and no one cares.

  11. Probably a house that has no garden or outdoor space. During renovations they rip out the top floor and make it a terrace?

  12. when building/rebuilding a facade they ask to build it up a high as the neighboring buildings. It looks better and when eventually someone wants to build up the facade looks the same instead of having different blocks. This might not be a fact but i trust my uncle haha

  16. it’s not the case here i think, but i have seen the facade of a building preserved but the top floor is actually a roof terrace

  18. Could also be a manner of tax evasion. If you knock down the full house you pay 21% VAT for the rebuild. If you keep the facade it is only 6%VAT (= considered a renovation instead of a new-build)

  19. Someone told me once that one of the requirements for claiming renovation subsidies is that you leave at least one entire facade of the building intact. So it might be the case here.

  21. The houses to the left and right are near identical in height, shape and composition. Probably they were forced to maintain the façade when renovating the place.

    This being said: it’s quite uncommon. Personally, I’ve never seen something as obvious as this in Belgium. If/when it happens, it’s near invisible.

  22. There’s the same thing in Paris with the exception that the whole building is fake. It’s just for aesthetic

  28. We’d rather have decorative façades than house refugees and homeless people in empty buildings. /s

    As mentioned, probably the building law in town keeping it tidy, the same way you couldn’t paint a façade purple for shit and giggles.

  34. Cities hate diversity I guess, they don’t want shorter houses or longer. They can all be ugly though.

  38. I have been told as a kid (but never verified) that this was a bit for tax purposes. Ik a lot of places, you have to build in a certain way (or adhere to the height of the rest of the street). If you didn’t have the money to do this immediately, building the facade like this was a trick to adhere to the rules while at the same time keeping your house “under construction” for the “kadaster” perpetually and thus not paying the full “kadastraal” income because your construction is not finished yet. I live in the area of Antwerp and know houses that have been like this for decades and they are still not paying “kadastraal” income to the level a regular house would cost there cause “constructing”.

    To;Dr: construction Vs tax loophole

Leave a Reply