The E.U. mission is to provide pace and stability, safety and security, but also identity and diversity in a globalized world. My research has focused in the last point. In order to understand Europe we have to understand the complexity of the different scales in which Europe is involved. From the really Global scale to the European ones, that means to deal with all the different countries composing the European Union, but also with their regional and local features. Brussels as a Capital of Europe in a way reflect these European features because of its internal divisions: 2 languages, 19 communes, and different ethnic groups due to the highest immigration during the XXth century. The analysis started with a research on the Mundaneum of Paul Otlet, an utopia for a world city of communication in which all the fact of knowledge come together in a global centre and then redistribute this knowledge to all places in the world. According to Michel Serras this is the concept of pantopia, that is the dream of having all the place of the world in one place or each place in all places. The European district in Brussels could embody the pantopia of Europe because of its large amount of European institutional buildings. But nowadays the EU district is just an anonymous office district, comparable to the world trade centre on the north side of the pentagon. These large urban interventions have provoked urban fragmentation, both at the urban fabric level and at the social level. Nowadays urban interventions are characterized by spatial discontinuity. In this sense I compared Brussels to a large archipelago of different island in which each section is working in a mono-programmed way, and this is changing the meaning with the historic city centre. If in the old city the power of one building was directed related to the city boundary, and the public space in front of the building was related to the function of the building (ceremony, games, etc..), in the contemporary city the power of few buildings is related to a larger network of political institutions in Europe. And the public space between these buildings is not directed related to the function of the buildings. I want to conceive a new type of public building, which can refer to a larger network of cultural institutions. The building works as a catalyst of different dynamics. It works as a server of a large number of cultural institutions. The aim is to give to the Mundaneum the opportunity to initiate collaboration with and among European cities and citizens. In turn this work has the potential to establish the mundaneum as a initiator of the European ideas. Here the relation with the mundaneum of Paul Otlet that has been conceived to get and redistribute knowledge from and to different places through technology. The inventio in my concept is to conceive a podium for identity and diversity through arts, to provide positive confrontation between different cultures. My position is that creation, production and representation of the European debate through arts to promote cultural exchange: to take on the ambition of critical reflexivity, to create a public area for forums and debates, to provide freedom of expression, recognitions and access to culture. This means to try to represent, through art performances and expositions, all the dynamics that are involved in Europe nowadays. Thematic exhibitions, festivals, conferences and debate on the European question will take place in the building. But also everyday life activities are crucial. People can use the building as a meeting place, they can find spaces to work, create, rehears, represent themselves or their organization. Local cultural institutions as well as international artistic or cultural institutions can use the building in order to confront their ideas about Europe or to express or denounce new reality within Europe.