Europe and Brussels had a mutual dependency from the founding of the European Communities. This article explores the historic relation between local urban and the transnational development of post-war Europe. It ultimately raises the question to what extent there exists a dialogue between various actors involved to actively design and build the image of Europe in Brussels.

International organisations and global governance studies typically refer to “architecture” as the structures of decision-making, power distribution, or financial flows. This position paper challenges this conventional understanding by delving into its primary meaning—the built environment. It charts ways in which architectural design, historiography, and criticism become relevant for the study of international organisations and, inversely, how multilateral diplomacy (e.g. “informal” networks such as the G20) questions existing architectural typologies and narratives. The study focuses on the meanings and expectations embedded in the spaces utilised by global governance actors. By evaluating the architectural discipline’s ability to conceptualise these spaces beyond their symbolic dimension, we emphasise the material characteristics and cultural connotations that shape negotiations, agreements, and treaties. Understanding their agency highlights the influential but often overlooked spatial dimension within international diplomacy and unveils how the built environment contributes to the imagination and materialisation of international governing.