Europe doesn't have a dearth of stunning architecture. Have they all been discarded in favor of ugly straightline modernist sloptitecture because they might be construed as offensive for some reason?
Because they are the european institutions, eg the EU parliament building, EU comission, etc.
They are mostly office buildings.
Are you against the idea of European cooperation in general? Or against the implementation?
If there is to be European cooperation that goes beyond heads of states talking to each other, you're going to need some kind of space where they can do that. Using that building as a symbol seems like an obvious choice albeit not a very creative one. Really struggle to see how that choice can be "extremely insulting".
A movie showing an external shot of the White House establishes that we're going to be looking at the US President next. A movie showing an external shot of the European Parliament establishes... office drones working in the Business Factory?
I don't think the ECB will ever be recognizable (or at least won't become recognized via exposure), since it's just a glass tower like thousands of others.
I'm against ugly soulless buildings. Those buildings can't be a symbol for anything, because they, like all modern [1] buildings, were deliberately designed to remove all identity. They are completely generic, no different from modern buildings in Beijing, New York, or Dubai. The only thing they represent is a capitulation, or refusal, of making things beautiful.
I'd vastly prefer some national landmark of the nation that committed war crimes against us in WWI & II, than that.
[1] Or is it "modernist"? Whatever the "style" of basic geometric shapes in steel and glass is called.
It seems pretty neutral, if un-exciting, to see EU institutions displayed on Euro banknotes. It also avoids the obvious pitfall of national landmarks.
but find some actually nice buildings to put on the rest
And I think that's why it was considered.
Europe is a continent with countries that have literally centuries of enimity and nationalism between them. You cannot put a French building on a banknote.
Bland and inoffensive is what keeps the Union together. Its why Strasbourg exists. Its why there are Dutch translators despite the fact every Dutch member of parliament speeches in English.
Having multiple languages is more of that "differences are fine". The use of Directives rather than Regulations for many purposes allows a country's government to incorporate local differences in how we do things. A Regulation applies everywhere, but the Directive just tells your government to make local law to meet some goal. What we want to achieve is the same in Paris and San Gimignano but how we do it will vary by local culture.
Or if you like to have something modern, Paimio Sanatorium or Turning Torso.
I remember a major French pro-european politician (Modem party) attempting to define Europe (in the context of integrating Turkey), as "the friends of democracy". When you can't (or rather refuse to) define your identity, the only thing left to represent it is birds, office buildings and bridges. Notre Damme de Paris or the Pantheon in Rome are just old embarrassing historical artefacts of an evil civilisation.
The blandness comes from the fact that the EU has to tiptoe around the nationalists which will be upset that a country they don't like gets a banknote, and possibly even worse - they didn't get one.
Reading back both your and my post I guess it's the radicals of either stance who the EU desperately needs to cater to, resulting in generic designs. It's erasing itself like any institution with a 1-member veto.[1]