The Bilbao Effect

Located near the coast of northern Spain, the Bilbao Guggenheim Museum is a testament to the transformative properties of the combination of art, design, and architecture. After its opening in 1997, the museum's impact stretched beyond that of an art museum, sparking a phenomenon called the Bilbao effect, reminiscently named after the structure that catalyzed the sequence of events. 

In the late twentieth century, the City of Bilbao was facing an extreme economic decline. It became clear that action was necessary to save the trajectory of the economic state of the city. The city partnered with the Guggenheim Foundation, led at the time by director Thomas Krens, to establish an institution that would serve as an instigator of urban renewal and cultural cohesion. 

The architect chosen to design the museum was Frank Gehry who beat two other architects in their endeavor to receive the honor of designing such an influential structure. Along the banks of the Nervion River, Gehry’s innovative design began to materialize as the construction of the titanium-clad masterpiece soon took place. The building's undulating forms and distinctive architecture captured the world's attention..

Once the museum was completed, it sparked a period of growth and an emphasis on cultural development. The term “The Bilbao effect” was coined by Robert Hughes in 2001 and refers to the positive impact that a major cultural institution, for example, a museum, art gallery, or theater, has on the economic and social development of a city. In the case of the Bilbao Guggenheim, the structure brought life back to the city by boosting the economy by attracting tourists, creating jobs, and fostering a sense of pride in the residents of the city. This phenomenon serves as a model for urban development on a global scale, inspiring cities worldwide to invest in cultural institutions to rejuvenate suffering economies and strengthen social bonds among members of the community. 

Despite numerous attempts to replicate its success worldwide, the Bilbao Guggenheim's unique circumstances, blending art, architecture, and urban renewal, make it an unparalleled phenomenon. Regardless, ​​the museum's impact extended beyond architecture, influencing the global trend of "iconic" buildings. Public authorities sought to replicate the Bilbao effect to kickstart regeneration, while private developers used distinctive designs as marketing tools. However, Bilbao Guggenheim's success lies not just in the building but in a broader urban regeneration.

The Bilbao Guggenheim and the Bilbao Effect represent a remarkable success story in the realm of cultural and urban development. The marriage of Frank Gehry's groundbreaking architecture with the vision of the Guggenheim Foundation has not only elevated Bilbao to international prominence but has also inspired cities around the world to recognize the potential of cultural institutions as engines of economic and social transformation. As we continue to witness the enduring impact of the Bilbao Guggenheim, it serves as a beacon for the potential of art and architecture to shape the destiny of cities and communities.

The impact of the Bilbao Guggenheim Museum on both the city and the global architectural scene is undeniable, yet there is a divergence of opinions among architecture critics. Sone critics contest the widely accepted Bilbao effect, dismissing it as a myth, arguing  that the museum's success is exaggerated, and attributing Bilbao's transformation to a combination of fortunate circumstances rather than solely the presence of the museum.

Frank Gehry, interestingly, agrees with these critiques. Gehry distances himself from the narrative of the Bilbao effect, expressing doubt about the city's alleged transformation story solely attributed to the museum. He blames journalists for perpetuating this oversimplified narrative and emphasizes that replicating the success of the Bilbao Guggenheim is a complex task.

While debates continue about the legitimacy of the Bilbao effect, the city undeniably underwent a noteworthy transformation into a lively hub of cultural and economic activity, evolving into a vibrant city with a service-oriented economy over time.

Works Cited

Joseph, Melva. “The Bilbao Effect- Impact of Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim - Rethinking the Future.” RTF | Rethinking the Future, 19 May 2020, www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/rtf-fresh-perspectives/a862-the-bilbao-effect-impact-of-frank-gehrys-guggenheim/#google_vignette. Accessed 13 Dec. 2023.

Rowan Moore. “The Bilbao Effect: How Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Started a Global Craze.” The Guardian, The Guardian, 21 Mar. 2018, www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/oct/01/bilbao-effect-frank-gehry-guggenheim-global-craze.

The Implementation of Urban Renewal Programs Across The United States in the Post-1950’s Era

Urban renewal programs have long been regarded as catalysts for economic growth and urban revitalization, however, these projects have left a lasting impact on the lives of numerous individuals who found themselves forced out of their homes and communities. The displacement of residents, primarily driven by highway construction and the need for newer infrastructure, has resulted in consequences that extend far beyond the physical relocation. Although generally viewed as an economic benefit, the implementation of urban renewal programs post-1950’s across the country had profound impacts on the lives of thousands of residents who were ultimately displaced due to mainly highway construction, as well as to create space for newer homes and buildings.

In the post-1950’s era, the country was still in the midst of recovering from World War II, and needed projects that would revitalize and stimulate the economy. Examples of these new institutions include highways and new buildings. These projects would not only provide jobs to people who could work on the construction of the structures, but also expand the physical space in which companies could run their business. However, the consequences of these efforts was the disruption and displacement of established neighborhoods, often inhabited by marginalized communities. The disruption of established social networks and the loss of cultural identity and the erosion of community due to these projects were detrimental. The losses that many people faced display the complexities of urban renewal programs and emphasize the importance of a comprehensive understanding of their impacts on affected communities.

The large scale of highway implementation programs resulted in the displacement of thousands of individuals, as well as the regression of the development of the neighborhoods that these highways were built through. In his book titled the Folklore of the Freeway, Eric Avila, Professor of History, Chicano Studies, and Urban Planning at UCLA, wrote about the topic. He argued that although the implementation of highways and highway systems reaped major benefits for American society, the work brought on extreme destruction among the lives of migrants and immigrants who were being disproportionately impacted. Over the span of the ten years between 1956 and 1966 the highway construction seized and destroyed 37,000 urban housing units each year. The construction not only created horrific housing and displacement conditions, but also severely destroyed communities and left damage to the environment. The highway programs also launched the general public's increased use of cars which burn oil and gasoline which pollute the air, ground, and water. These effects created new struggles for those who had already previously been struggling and created additional barriers between those living in these communities and their goals.The highway program was a great economic source of power for the United States, however this program had long-lasting decremental effects on low-income and predominantly people of color populated neighborhoods. This is because these acts specifically targeted these neighborhoods and forcibly displaced them in order to build the highways. This resulted in many people without housing and being forced to relocate without governmental assistance.

The highway construction projects, as well as the increase of automobile use also increased pollution levels and the long term effects of the highway programs can be recognized not only within the culture of these communities, but the surrounding environment as well. Professor Avila wrote about Jane Jacobs, an author who was active in the urban planning industry, arguing that the highways were ‘border vacuums’ which devoid a neighborhood of its cultural and social elements as well as induced a sense of disorganization and chaos for pedestrians. The rise of institutions such as highways, hospitals, civic centers, and even universities drained the spaces that they occupied of economic activity potential. This fostered an environment where crime and homelessness thrived over cultural and economic nourishment. The highway projects created separation and isolation for some neighborhoods, and completely cut them off from the society that supported their local businesses which resulted in the decline of the economies of those communities. Often when a highway or freeway is built, it limits the space that could be used to improve the socioeconomic status of those places. In her book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, urban planning activist Jane Jacobs explains her opinion about the topic. She wrote, “Borders can thus tend to form vacuums of use adjoining them. Or to put it another way, by oversimplifying the use of the city at one place, on a large scale, they tend to simplify the use which people give to the adjoining territory too, and this simplification of use – meaning fewer users, with fewer different purposes and destinations at hand – feeds upon itself. The more infertile the simplified territory becomes for economic enterprises, the still fewer users, and the still more infertile territory.” When spaces are used to create borders such as train tracks and highways, not only those structures, but the spaces surrounding those structures are subject to being impacted by the harmful effects of the projects. By continuing to construct these types of projects the systemic oppression of the areas and their surroundings are amplified as they progress.

Cities across the country felt the impacts of the highway programs, and in Southern California, a disproportionate amount of Mexican-Americans living in the areas surrounding the freeway construction sites were displaced due to legislative discrepancy surrounding the policies about protocols for housing accommodations. A 1966 LA Times article written by the Times Urban Affair Editor, Herbert Ray, stated that Southern California took the lead in federally assisted urban renewal projects as the large scale of displacements caused by the construction of freeways is directly linked to the magnitude of the building program. In Los Angeles, for instance, approximately 15,000 individuals were uprooted due to the construction of the Santa Monica Freeway alone, which is one of several major routes either already completed, under construction, or planned for the metropolitan area. People were being displaced from their homes by the thousands, with only a fraction of displaced people being accounted for. This lack of accountability on the part of the federal government to take every step to ensure the safety of citizens directly resulted in thousands of families being displaced. After what they had claimed was unlawful, many people in these neighborhoods decided to fight for their rights as residents.

In 1971, a lawsuit was filed against the California Highway Commission with the accusation that they had not properly followed the requirements that were in place to ensure the protection of the rights of people living in the housing that was being demolished. In 1972, El Chicano, a California based newspaper, published an article discussing the lawsuit and claimed that “acquiring land for freeways without first complying with the federal laws designed to protect both displaces and the environment. State highway officials had commenced displacement of over 5,000 low-income Mexican Americans residing in the freeway corridor, although no replacement housing was available, and had routed the freeway through three parks.” This is one of many examples of lawsuits that resulted from the neglect of the highway displacement committees and groups. Time and time again, countless families are left unhoused due to highway projects, yet officials do not change their policies or pay extra attention to resolving the issues that had been brought up. The newspaper continued, “The plaintiffs alleged that these acts by state highway officials violated the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1969, 43 U.S.C. 4331, Section 4 of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 23 U.S.C. 1653 and Section 138 of the Federal Highway Act of 1968, 23 U.S.C. 138. The Uniform Relocation Assistance Act protects displacees by prohibiting the head of a federal agency from approving federally assisted projects unless he receives satisfactory assurances from the state agency involved. That, within a reasonable period prior to displacement, decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing will be available to displaced persons.” The suit indicated that they violated several policies that were set in place to prevent events like these from occurring. The premise that these laws had already existed in order to keep people protected, but they were still having to fight for the law to be enforced within the city planning offices, shows the disregard that the urban renewal plans and policies had for those living in the neighborhoods. Although each party admitted that they had not followed any of the federal laws or regulations mentioned, they argued that compliance was unnecessary because the freeway in question did not qualify as a federal-aid highway. They supported this argument by stating that federal officials had only granted approval for the freeway's location. The ignorance on the part of those who were in charge of construction was upheld even after they had admitted to not following the regulations in place before building. These programs not only harmfully affected the people but the environment as well.

As highway construction began to infiltrate the country, citizens began to express their aversion and concern more frequently as larger industries began to take stake in the profits that highway’s accumulated. Many people were alarmed by the plans that were being suggested in order to implement the highway systems. However, Avila writes “The residents of the downtown elite social class were one of the many private entities that were extremely invested in the implementation of an interstate highway system. Big automobile companies were also largely invested not only for cars but in the production of rubber, glass, steel, as well as larger cooperation such as oil companies, suburban retailers, and housing and real estate developers. They also had a lot of support from the Automotive Safety Foundation, the National Automobile Association, the American Association for Highway Improvement, the American Road Builders Association, and the Urban Land Institute which strengthened their stake in the projects.” The highway lobby was composed of large cooperation and backed by federal organizations which gave them funding as well as would profit off of the highways being built.

While highway acts are responsible for a majority of the displacement and housing crisis during the post-1950’s era, there were also numerous policies and laws that contributed to the problem as well. In New York, the effects of these laws and policies were distorted and abused by figures in power. In his book titled, The Roots of Urban Renaissance: Gentrification and the Struggle over Harlem, Professor Brian D. Goldsteins writes “Two major tools under the Housing Act of 1949 facilitated this reconstruction. The first, the act’s Title I, enabled the acquisition and clearance of private land with considerable public subsidy, and its subsequent development by private investors. The second, Title III, provided for the construction of public housing on cleared blocks. New York City pursued both ends enthusiastically under the dominant leadership of Robert Moses, who ensured that New York maintained a steady flow of funding from federal benefactors. By 1960, New York had obtained nearly $66 million in grants under Title I, almost doubling those of the second-largest recipient, Chicago. Through Title I, the city supported institutional expansion of its universities, built public facilities like the New York Coliseum and Lincoln Center, and constructed nearly 30,000 housing units for middle-income and affluent New Yorkers. Likewise, officials created 130,000 new public housing units in greater New York between 1945 and 1965 under Title III, rebuilding hundreds of acres in the process.” While these housing projects were often branded as developing the construction and culture of the city by creating homes and residential areas, in reality they only benefited those who were white and middle or upper class. New Yorkers of color were often pushed out of their neighborhoods in order to allow new construction to take place that they could not afford to live in. The gentrification of certain neighborhoods directly resulted in families of color being forced to move into extremely poor and under-maintained neighborhoods simply because of something a potentially biased official identified.

The consequences and loss experienced by many individuals due to urban renewal programs highlight the complex nature of these programs and emphasize the importance of a comprehensive understanding of these impacts on affected communities. It is crucial that urban planning initiatives prioritize the preservation of communities, and ensure that the benefits of the programs are equitably distributed. It is also extremely important that the rights and safety of residents are continuously supported and maintained. The post-1950s urban renewal initiatives often reflected the racially discriminatory policies that supported urban segregation. Minority communities and other marginalized groups were the main targets of mass residential displacement. Many vibrant and culturally diverse neighborhoods where communities of color thrived, were targeted for clearance and redevelopment. Although many communities fought for their rights regarding displacement, this led to the loss of homes, businesses, and community institutions. The legacy of racial discrimination and social injustice embedded within these programs echoes throughout history, highlighting the deeply rooted systemic challenges faced by marginalized communities.

Bibliography

Avila, Eric. The Folklore of the Freeway: Race and Revolt in the Modernist City. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2014. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/spenceschool/detail.action?docID=1693129.

El Chicano (Colton, CA). "MALDEF Halts Freeway Construction." January 19, 1972, 1. https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/readex/doc?p=EANX&docref=image/v2%3A11C77DA26CF5B617%40EANX-11CA7AADDF599AB0%402441336-11C9944CF9BB57B8%400-121267A827D3E08D%40MALDEF%2BHalts%2BFreeway%2BConstruction.

Goldstein, Brian D. The Roots of Urban Renaissance: Gentrification and the Struggle over Harlem. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017. http://spenceschool.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=1421260&site=ehost-live&scope=site&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_20.

Herbert, Ray. "Poor Families, Minority Groups Hardest Hit as Cities Clear Slums: URBAN RENEWAL." The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, CA), April 11, 1966, A1. https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/poor-families-minority-groups-hardest-hit-as/docview/155446753/se-2.

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1961.

The New York Times (New York, NY). "Negro Suit Scores Urban Renewal: Ban Is Urged on Projects That Keep Segregation." May 28, 1967, 44. https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/negro-suit-scores-urban-renewal/docview/117748610/se-2.

The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum

One of New York Cities' most famous buildings is the iconic Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. Featured in movies such as Mr. Popper’s Penguins and Men In Black, the museum has made countless appearances in the media likely due to its unique architecture. Frank Lloyd Wright, one of the most famous architects in history, created this design while embodying a departure from traditional museum architecture. He did this by designing the building with its sweeping spiraling ramps and cylindrical shape. The unique design allows visitors to experience the artwork in an innovative and creative manner, as they move seamlessly from one gallery to the next. The building is constructed out of glass and concrete which creates an airy spacious feeling enhanced by the iconic skylight that lets natural sunlight cascade in. The Guggenheim's architecture, with its curving lines and fluid geometry, is often described as a work of art in itself. The building's shape and structure were inspired by a spiral, a shape that is prevalent in nature and embodies movement and transformation. The buildings' design is not only architecturally innovative and eye-catching, but the unique layout adds to the experience of the museum as a whole. In contrast to traditional museum layouts, visitors are able to observe the art in a continuous flow, allowing for a more immersive, interactive, and engaging experience. The Guggenheim's architecture has influenced and inspired many other buildings and architects, both nationally as well as globally, and remains a testament to the power of design and its ability to transform the way we experience art and space.