I don’t think Brussels is boring. I do think Brugges is a better visit for most tourists. Brussels has plenty of widely diverse nightlife and culture, plenty of good food and beer, and since you are interested in more modern architecture, there’s something to to see. For most tourists, an hour in the medieval square covers all the “sights” in Brussels and it’s easier to find the interesting churches and museums, beer, nightlife, waffles, pomme frittes, and chocolate in very compact Brugges.

If you get bored take a day trip to Brugges, Antwerp or the Ardennes (Bastogne is a good visit if you’re into WWII)

I don’t hate Brussels, it’s just that with limited time and budgets, I’d rather spend time in next-closest Amsterdam or Paris. Brussels is right on the train line, roughly equidistant between them, and as such, is worth a stop for most of a day, but Brugge is probably a better snapshot (literally and figuratively). I did enjoy a micropub crawl last time I was in Brussels; some very fine craft biers there.

Mesa77,

The problem is that people assume that only the major cities are worth seeing, and that nothing exists between the major and/or well-known cities. People don’t bother to do any research on the country or countries they’re interested in visiting. They just pick all the largest cities or smaller but very-well-known places, and there’s their itinerary. Brussels is certainly worth a look, IMO, and the historic center is absolutely stunning. But for travelers with a very limited time, and with only one stop to spare in Belgium, we usually suggest a place like Liége or Brugge for the one place they visit.