AN INSIGHT INTO STARCHITECTURESOLUTION FOR EVOLUTION: INFORMING FUTURE PARAMETERS

Goh Chee HouU30099 Dissertation

25.01.2013

A dissertation presented to the School of Architecture, Oxford Brookes University in part fulfilment of the regulations for BA (Hons) in Architecture.

Statement of Originality

This dissertation is an original piece of work which is made available for copying with permission of the Head of the School of Architecture

Signed

______________ Chee Hou Goh

Content

03

Introduction -Definition of Starchitecture and Starchitect-Research Direction

Chapter 1.1 Case Study. Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. Positive Side.

Chapter 1.2 Case Study. Centre Georges Pompidou. Positive Side.

Chapter 2.1 Case Study. Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. Negative Side.

Chapter 2.2 Case Study. Centre Georges Pompidou. Positive Side.

Conclusion 41 - 43

37 - 40

33 - 36

25 - 32

17 - 24

5 - 16

Page

Bibliography

Images References

45 - 47

48 - 50

04

INTRODUCTION04 05

Starchitecture… a very interesting term...

but what is Starchitecture?

06

Figure 1.0: Centre Georges Pompidou

07

The Oxford dictionary defines a Starchitect as a famous or high-profile architect; the word derives from a combination of “star” and “architect” referring to a film star who designed a house in 1940. Since Starchitecture is the derivative of Starchitect, it should then be understood as architecture specifically designed by a Starchitect.

In 2011, Pentagram’s first female principal Paula Scher was asked by Metropolis magazine, for its 30th anniversary issue, to explain a buzzword which was coined by journalists in the late 1990s in response to the “Bilbao Effect” from Frank Gehry. The term has been widely used in design journalism in recent years: “Starchitect.” Due to that request, she decided to create a new typeface, together with designer Drew Freeman, to describe the boldness of these wealthy celebrity architects. This was how it was written in the magazine:

“Introducing ‘Starchitecture,’ a new font that can be used by any architect who is makinga building that has lots of glass or is curvy, or

has some kind of skin of patterning or bigtype and/or logos sandblasted onto it or all

of these features at once.” (Scher, 2011)

06

08

From the statement of Scher, what has been understood as Starchitecture is a type of design which is iconic and always highly visible in its context. Interestingly, she does not state that Starchitecture must be the work of a Starchitect but implies instead that anyone can do it. Does it mean that the words “Starchitect” and “Starchitecture” are not firmly connected and related to each other? Can we say that the buildings designed by Starchitects may not necessarily become Starchitecture at the end, while any architects’ works may actually become Starchitecture one day, if they meet the requirements set out by Paula Scher or if they are iconic? It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek when the word Starchitecture was created. However, as time passes by, its meaning seems to get stronger and, as the discussion and comments, good or bad, intensify, even the Starchitects themselves are beginning to worry about the way they should be addressed.

I believe that Starchitecture should be treated as a trend of architecture; a trend is defined as a general tendency or direction in which something is developing or changing. Starchitecture indeed suitably matches this definition: Through my research, I have noticed that it always becomes representative of the city or country it is promoting, a design statement, and an essential landmark. It is comparable to fashion. Each season, many different fashion trends are created and each of them always has the surprising ability to be fresh, distinctive special, more daring or conservative, more complicated or simpler than the previous one. In this case, although each trend is unique, they still share the same objective which is to promote the person itself. Starchitecture could hence be compared to trends while the city or country would be the person.

Figure 2.0: Starchitecture- iconic. Figure 3.0: Fashion- comparable with Starchitecture

09

The opposite of Starchitecture is Canonic architecture, designed by architects who follow the general rules and principles of architecture. Canonic architects do not usually go beyond what is necessary and do not have a fixed recognizable pattern/style in their design. In contrast, Frank Gehry, Daniel Libeskind, Zaha hadid or Santiago Calatrava do design very similarly for most of their buildings by using the same principle, same materials, same colour and even same shape/ form throughout their creations. This is what canonic architects do not do. For example, Louis Kahn does not aim to maintain uniformity throughout his work instead, he focuses greatly on how people feel when they are in the building, how the interior spaces are pleasantly linked to each other, how the interior is connected to the exterior and so on. When comparing Starchitecture and canonic architecture, it seems like the former could be correlated to an experiment on architecture since Starchitects are very daring in the way they use materials for example. Indeed, Frank Gehry is reknowned for his used of Titanium on the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, while Santiago Calatrava has been pushing the limits of structural engineering by using mostly concrete for his curved skeletal designs. Canonic architecture meanwhile, is totally different: instead of experimenting, the canonic architects make reasonable use of the materials available for their designs, while complying with structural limitations. Yet, they are somehow able to brilliantly express their conceptual ideas through simple forms and shapes.

Figure 4.0: Titanium Cladded Facets.

Figure 5.0: Santiago Calatrava’s building.

10

I decided to study Starchitecture in particular because I believe that it is something essential for a developing city or country hoping to attract more attention from people around the world, in a short period of time. Of course, many different factors are to be taken into account to fulfill the same purpose: for instance the interaction among the countries, words of mouth through the international students or workers, reputation gained from achievements from many different fields like sports and so on. However, it is still considered as one of the most efficient ways to promote the city in the form of iconic landmarks, as tourism is growing rapidly due to people’s huge interest in travelling. All Starchitecture, , however does not necessarily become a landmark as not all buildings are as beautifully constructed as the Bilbao Guggenheim Museum by Frank Gehry, or as stunning as the Centre Georges Pompidou by Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers. Here I do not intend to celebrate these two buildings or to state that they are the perfect models of Starchitecture; rather to explain that there must be some qualities missing in some Starchitecture which makes them fail to convince the general public to accept them as good architecture. Some people who are very much impressed by extravagant shapes and forms might think that they are brilliant buildings. In contrast, people who admire buildings which are beyond shapes and forms will find Starchitecture overwhelming and exaggerating.

Figure 6.0: Perfect model to be studied ?Guggenheim museum Bilbao night view.

Figure 7.0: How good will it be?-Centre Georges Pom-pidou’s public space.

11

To begin with, it is essential to understand what makes an architect a Starchitect. As defined, Starchitects mean famous or high-profile architects, but what are the factors which help them become well-known? Is it simply because Starchitects are all geniuses who have extraordinary design abilities? No, it is definitely a ‘’No’’ as this can be explained with my research. Before going too far, here is an interesting question:

Architect + ? = Starchitect

A logical answer to the question mark could be something to do with creativity and innovation. Starchitecture is about attracting people’s attention visually on the very first place. To attract attention visually, it has to be something special and interesting in terms of the form of the building, the order of spaces within it to inform the movement of visitors, the use of materials and the facilities provided. These are the ideas: creative and innovative ideas that may divide architects into different levels: those who always display these qualities will slowly become the focus of the mass media. They will gain fame mostly through their designs which will be built for instance, Frank Gehry who became famous only after the completion of the Bilbao Guggenheim Museum, a 20th century contemporary building renowned for its extraordinary curved cladding facets of titanium. Another example is the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris designed by Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers in the style of high-tech architecture which reveals completely the structure of the building, the components sometimes serving little or no structural role.

12

Creative and Innovative ideas come from experimentation. In architecture, it is done mostly on the use of material, in a way no one could ever think of. It is risky and time consuming as because a new and original idea will rarely have and most often does not have any precedent to refer to. However, experimentation exposes architects to more opportunities of getting attention from influential people, especially businessmen and city leaders who are looking for something out of the ordinary to attract visitors. Experimentation itself can be in a large or small scale and Starchitects are always big fans of large scale experimentation for their iconic design. Undoubtedly, Santiago Calatrava is one of the best examples of this as he is pushing the limit of architecture by using mostly concrete to build the world’s most daring structures. Concrete is a heavy material but he uses it in the opposite way: all the curved or skeletal buildings that he designs look unexpectedly light and as if they are about to fly.

Innovative and creative ideas, experimentation, risk taking or daring, these are the keys to be a Starchitect. However, there is another important element to make them all work, a very biased reality, which is having a strong public relation. Starchitecture is all about promoting works through all sorts of media e.g. books, articles, exhibition, press conference, and so on to gain fame but they have to be extraordinary as mentioned earlier. Today, what Starchitecture is more focusing on is the recognition of the public but not the architectural value as a service to serve people in the best possible way. All of them are designed out of fantastic and original ideas but most of them are of low detailing quality and craftsmanship. They have slowly drifted away from the very basic functional requirements as of a building.

Figure 8.0: Public Relation

13

This dissertation, again, contains three goals:

1. To explore and form my own opinion on Starchitecture by using mainstream and alter-native media,

2. Look at the positive and negative of Starchitecture, i.e. the benefits and detrimen-tal effects Starchitecture has on cities around the world.

3. To find out what can improve Starchitec-ture, taking the benefits and learning from the detrimental effects.

Figure 9.0: Image

14

There are an infinite number of issues about architecture in this 21st century but why did I choose “Starchitecture” as my dissertation topic? I was like many other students who admired cool, futuristic, funky buildings simply because they had the “spaceship-like” shape and form. However, since I joined the university, I was exposed to a lot of different types of architecture, I started to appreciate architectures with simple forms because they are able to bring certain necessary feelings to the users and avoid unnecessary design. They impressed me a lot: indeed I think it is the hardest thing to achieve to design a very simple building in terms of shape, colour and material so that it doesn’t lose its aesthetical quality, unlike those stylish buildings that I used to love.

There was a phenomenon that would make me wonder and confused until now. From a student’s perspective, I am surrounded by many people who have their own very logical and sometimes even emotional opinions toward a certain type of architecture. And this Starchitecture has caused the strongest response both positives and negatives from people such as architecture critics, journalists, architects and students. How is it that an architectural movement could receive nearly an equal number of compliments and criticisms? People tend to like a design when it is visually attractive and elegantly drawn or hate it if it is simply ugly at the first glance. Their perception towards the same design might or might not change after having a better understanding of it through reading articles or architectural reviews by journalists or random bloggers. The problem here is that those articles and reviews could be very subjective and not all of them are reliable. Even a professional architecture critic could somehow be biased on his/her architectural preferences. As I mentioned before, there is a phenomenon that makes me wonder and here it is what I am wondering. I am wondering why a person, whether a journalist, architecture critic, architect or student would have such an emotional response to Starchitecture by judging the buildings simply through photos or renders and information provided by the journalists. Moreover, why should anyone have any preconceptions on those buildings which are not even being built yet?

Figure 10.0: Stylish building that I admired.

15

Certainly, it cannot be denied that Starchitecture has become too present almost everywhere in the world, too overwhelming. Many developers from the private sector or from the government tend to hire Starchitects to design their buildings because of their high reputation but also because they know that their very elegantly designed and iconic buildings are the best tools, to generate income or improve the economy of certain places. For the private sector, Starchitecture is well-known in publicizing their name or brand to the whole world; for the government, Starchitecture are normally being built to aim to be used as landmarks to promote an unpopular city to attract more visitors from foreign countries, mainly to improve the economy. They are efficient in achieving these two main goals because they are iconic, unconventional and visually attractive. The functions of the building itself are usually coming second to how the building looks like in these matters. However, Starchitecture buildings are somehow very expensive and each of the Starchitects has their very own style. From what I have understood and observed as a student, these are the two main reasons why some people hate them so much. Frank Gehry is a very good example to illustrate this situation. His Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is known as one of the most admired works of contemporary architecture and the building has even been greeted as a “signal moment in the architectural culture”, because it represents “one of those rare moments when critics, academics,

and the general public were all completely united about something.”(Tyrnauer, 2010) In the 2010 World Architecture Survey among architecture experts, the museum was the building most frequently named as one of the most important works completed since 1980. Nevertheless, a lot of criticisms are now being made on Gehry’s other designs of a very similar style. Here is a question,” Why are Gehry’s other buildings not being celebrated as much as the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao since they were all designed using a similar methodology, in a very unconventional way?” Is it due to people getting bored with his designs because they always look the same? Or, is it because they have been influenced by others’ opinions? Or, do they hate it just simply because they feel they will never have the talent to design like him? There are so many possibilities that will lead to the wrong judgments on these designs, on Starchitecture. How is it that even a single opinion on a building becomes very important as it will somehow affect others’ perception on that building too.

Figure 11.0: Frank Gehry’s work are all as similar as this.

16

You, reader and I have no difference as we are both humans; humans tend to live in a world of irrational “beliefs” where unless they have proved it wrong, anything, is right. It is like the “faith” in religions; no one has ever proved which religion is the right one to follow. And what did we do? We believe. And today, religion is so strong and important. Architecture is different, we should never just “believe” how well a building is going to work instead, we must find a way to work out rationally on how it is going to work and think on behalf of the users. No matter how different architecture has become compared to that of the past or how it is going to evolve in the future, the origin of architecture as a service to the people will never change. No judgments should be made on any building or in other words, we should retain a neutral perspective on a building before we understand it fully. Hence, I will begin my research by keeping such a neutral perspective as part of my methodology.

CHAPTER 1.1Case Study. Positive Side.

Guggenheim Museum Bilbao

17

18

Starchitecture is not a very new topic but is still highly perplexing. To begin with, I have chosen two buildings as examples of Starchitectures that have been highly complimented. One of them is the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao which was designed by the 1989 Pritzker Prize winner Frank Gehry. This building has been mentioned twice earlier on as it seems like a key element to be explored and studied as a successful example of Starchitecture. The other one is the Centre Georges Pompidou which was also designed by Pritzker Prize winners, Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers who were honored in year 1998 and 2007 respectively. The only difference between the two is that Gehry received the prize before he designed the museum while Piano and Rogers received it afterward. Through my research, I am not supporting or going against Starchitecture, instead, I am interested in looking at both aspects of this trend: the positives and the negatives. I am hoping that it will later allow me to form a fair opinion about it. In this chapter, I will begin with the positives and follow with the negatives in the next, in order to define a clearer picture of how well Starchitecture may work. In February 1998, at the age of 91, Philip Johnson, the first-ever winner of the Pritzkers Prize known as the godfather of Modern Architecture , stood in the atrium of the Bilbao Guggenheim Museum and gestured up to the twisted pillars supporting the glass-and steel ceiling. He declared: “Architecture is not about words. It’s

about tears.” Breaking into heavy sobs, he added, “I get the same feeling in the Chartres Cathedral.” The atmosphere of the ostentatious museum touched Johnson so profoundly that he ventured into comparing it to what is regarded as one of the greatest achievements in the history of architecture. The cathedral has indeed singularly been preserved in its original state, up to the very details of its facade. Guggenheim Museum Bilbao had just opened its doors and Johnson, the principal apostle of the two most influential architecture movements in of the 20th century-Modernism and Postmodernism- audaciously designated it as “the greatest building of our time.” He went as far as calling Gehry “the greatest architect we have today.” However, these were Johnson’s very own feelings, subjective perceptions and opinions as a visitor who experienced this unique space. His comparison between the Museum and the Cathedral asserted our belief that the Starchitecture of Frank Gehry presents an analogous feeling to the users: grand, very far but comforting. It is similar to the impression one gets when entering a sacred space, starting from the dramatic exterior and following with the discovery of the beautifully crafted walls and ceiling of the nave, and the natural light piercing through the stained-glass windows. Once they close their eyes and start praying, the believers feel calm, relaxed and closer to God. Even if God does not exist the cathedral is able to deliver the message.

18 19

When looking at the Guggenheim Museum and to illustrate how it sits in its surroundings it can be useful to refer to descriptions made by the visitors: “The one thing that someone visiting the Bilbao Guggenheim can forget about is any thought of actually entering the building. Stay outside it, at a distance of about one hundred yard, and you will absorb all its audacity, magic, good humour and genius. And its infantilising charm.”(Ballard, J.G., 2007) Ballard, an English novelist and short-story writer famous for his work Crash (1973) and the semi-autobiographical Empire of the Sun (1984) beautifully described here the enchanting power of the museum. In its interview to the Guardian, he added, “Stop

when you have crossed the Nervión, and you will see the Bilbao Guggenheim in all its gilded magnificence, its immense and slightly baggy volumes reflected in the river and the ornamental pools of the plaza that separates the museum from the water’s edge” describing how Gehry made use of the adjacent river Nervión. According to Ballard’s portrayal of the museum, visitors should expect to get confused at first when looking at the random shapes of the structure, soon however these will begin to make sense as their eyes get accustomed to a new kind of language - Gehry’s language - a Starchitect’s language. Gehry’s innovative and creative style turned the Museum into a revolution in the world of architecture, and

Figure 12.0: Guggenheim Museum titanium facets

20

set him apart from the other Starchitects. Ballard even declared, “In some ways the building is the larval stage of a new kind of architecture that will emerge from its chrysalis and finally take wing a hundred years from now.”

Aside from analysing the design of the building through the words of Philip Johnson, James Graham Ballard and other influential people, we should also take a step back to discuss whether it has efficiently overcome the problems existing in Bilbao before its construction. In early 1991, the Basque Administration decided to convert the Alhóndiga, a former wine warehouse into a cultural facility. The Alhóndiga was constructed in the early 20th century and was one of the first cast-concrete structures built in Spain; it covered an area of 28,000 square meters along Bilbao’s Alameda de Relcalde, running toward the Nervión River. Financial resources had been allocated toward its reconstruction and the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation was sponsoring the project. The reason behind this commission

was complex; the city was actually facing some serious problems. Bilbao had been hosting a vibrant mercantile and industrial community since the latter part of the 19th century, but in the late 20th century, in the faces of recession and with the shipbuilding production being moved to Asia, it went into a difficult transition to high-service industries. As a result, the city suffered an extremely high unemployment rate of up to 25 percent, and traditional industries became obsolete. Other problems included urban deterioration, severe traffic congestion caused by busy river port and a poor public transport system, as well as pollution and violent attacks from the extremist Basque separatists known as the ETA. Bilbao was determined to finding solutions and put up a holistic plan in which major resources were devoted to urban renewal. The city created a new subway line designed by the architect Sir Norman Foster, a new airport terminal and a suspension bridge crossing the Nervión River designed by Santiago Calatrava. An intermodal passenger station handled by the firm of James Stirling, Michael Wilford and

Figure 13.0: Alhóndiga Figure 14.0: Nervión River

21

Associates was created, new drainage and water/ventilation systems; new offices, public plazas, residential and leisure complexes were built in the city; while away from the urban centre the town actively developed waterfronts, industrial and technology parks and a seaport. The Basque population was very enthusiastic at the thought of converting the abandoned Alhóndiga into a contemporary art exhibition space to upgrade their city. Still they did not have an internationally renowned art collection to display, nor did they have the expertise to run an important museum. This is where the collaboration with the Guggenheim Foundation became profitable. However, in an interview in 1995, Gehry recalled, “My advice was to move the Museum somewhere else,” when he was invited by Thomas Krens, the director of the Guggenheim Foundation. He felt that the Alhóndiga was not suitable to be restored into a museum as he believed both tearing down and preserving the exterior would create problems. Namely, the fabric of that particular area of the city would be affected if the exterior was to be torn down, while preserving the exterior would cause contradiction in terms of scale and style. In the end he chose the site by the river because it was going through a redevelopment and because of its interesting location under the bridge.

Gehry’s choice of site for the Guggenheim Museum indirectly determined the fate of Bilbao and its future development. However, prior to winning this unique commission, Gehry had to compete with another two architects: the Japanese

Isozaki and the Viennese team of Wolf D. Prix and Helmut Swiczinky, known as Coop Himmelblau. “The aim of the selection committee was to choose a building that would be greater than sum of its parts and with a strong iconic identity of its own so that people would want to visit the building for itself, while being respectful of the art to be shown in it: The inescapable analogy was Wright’s Guggenheim Museum on Fifth Avenue.”(Bruggen, 1997) In comparison with Coop Himmelblau and Gehry’s architectural proposals, Isozaki’s architectural proposal for the museum was rather monolithic and hardly connected to the Puente de la Salve, an important requirement of the program. The selection committee found more interesting the Starchitecture-style proposals of both the American and the Viennese architects. Krens recalls, “It was not immediate that it was going to be Frank,” […] “Coop Himmelblau had done a very sensitive job….The rectilinear shapes were actually going to be translated and suspended inside the grid….You walked into spaces of different shapes, but because of the glow at night, the skin seemed to be eliminated. This was a very interesting idea.”

Figure 15.0: Guggenheim Museum by Frank L.Wright.

22

In the end however, Gehry won the commission, because his proposal had a stronger connection to the city. He dedicated an important part of the design to creating harmonious relationship between the building and its context, the waterfront; he wanted strong visual connections from three places: the Museo de Bellas Artes, from across the river and from the City hall Bridge. Besides that, his proposal also allowed a wide range of artworks to be exhibited: from small paintings to huge thought-provoking installations. To conclude, I have demonstrated why a Guggenheim Museum was needed in the city of Bilbao, how Gehry got involved in this project, why this specific site was chosen and finally how the American genius won over the architecture committee. I mentioned earlier the problems that Bilbao was facing before the museum was built; I now intend to look at how Starchitecture helped in tackling them. In 1998, the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao began to carry out a survey to look at its contribution to the transformation of the Basque Autonomous Region, its tourism industry and its economy in general. In the report of the summarized results of the survey for the period from October 1997 to 31st December 2000 a few main results emerged. In this period of time, the Museum had a total of 3.6 million visitors with 83% coming to Bilbao exclusively to see the Museum or, having come for different reasons, extended their stay in order to visit it. The direct spending by these visitors amounted to more than 600 million euros, which was an average spending of 173.80 euros per person. Among all the

sectors, catering had benefited the most from the trade generated by the Museum, with 212 million euros spent in restaurants, bars and cafeterias. It was followed by shopping, 157 million euros in shops and stores. Spending of accommodation was 140 million euros, transport benefited by 35 million euros spent on gasoline, highway tools, etc. In other words, the Basque Country had generated added value and wealth in its economy amounting to more than 481 million euros in just three years and two and a half months. More impressively, an annual average of 4,000 jobs had been maintained due to the generation of wealth and activities generated by the existence of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. This additional economic activity had further created more than 90 million euros of additional revenue, in the form of VAT, Company Tax and Income Tax for the Basque Treasury Departments. In the years following the opening of the Museum this trend continued, in 2005, the number of jobs maintained had gone up to 4,893 and in 2007, the amount of direct expenditure, GDP generated and treasury revenue was the highest since 1997. The troubles that the Bilbao had been facing, before the construction of Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, significantly reduced according to the data above. What of the 25 percent unemployment rate? GMB has created and maintained more than enough job opportunities for this third- or fourth-tier city. How did it help the traditional industries that were becoming obsolete? They could be restored and opened to the visitors who are attracted by the GMB, as part

23

of the increase tourism to Bilbao. What of the other problems such as urban deterioration, severe traffic congestion caused by the busy riverport, poor public transport system and pollution in the city? The excellent responses from the visitors from both outside and inside the country would definitely give more confidence to the Basque Country to give priority to the development of Bilbao, in order to enhance the high tourism opportunity in the surroundings of GMB. Was there an

impact on the violence from the extremist Basque separatists (ETA)? The additional income of an average 20 million euros each year, higher attention from other countries and a more systematic development of the city was seen as a big threat to the ETA and may even have contributed to ETA’s decision to disband the group in November 2012, after fighting a 45-year campaign for Basque independence, because of its declining support in recent years.

Figure 16.0: Guggenheim Museum Bilbao next to the waterfront.

24

25

CHAPTER 1.2Case Study. Positive Side.

Centre Georges Pompidou

26

Before looking at the analyses of the economic impact of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao’s activities and its long term contribution to the city, Starchitecture was for me only an iconic building in a city, which mainly created fame for the city and architect. But now, I have developed an understanding of the very important reasons behind building Starchitecture. Before exploring the possible negative

side of Starchitecture, it is important to look at another Starchitecture which was built in 1997, and is 20 years older than the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao- the Centre Georges Pompidou. In the 1960s, French government planners decided to move a food market from Les Halles located in the 1st arrondissement to the outskirts of Rungis.

Figure 17.0: Centre Georges Pompidou- Human activities at public space.

27

This decision caused controversy over the future of the market structures. These structures were a collection of fine, cast-iron and glass pavilions designed by a 19th century architect named Victor Baltard. (Silver, 1994)Due to their important historical value, a proposal was made suggesting that they be occupied by Paris’ poor cultural institutions. Another suggestion was to have the structures used for a proper modern art museum rather than the Musée National d’Art Moderne (National Modern Art Museum) with the aim of restoring Paris as a visual arts centre. Further to these, there was a demand for an adequate public library, as Paris lacked any large, free, general-purpose library. Although the focus was to save Baltard’s structure in Les Halles, the idea of having a library had received widespread support and led to the announcement of a new site, for the construction of a new library. This library was then adopted by the new president, Georges Pompidou. In December 1969, the “mixed-use library-plus-arts-centre concept” for Beaubourg was born after the president decided to include some better spaces for the National Modern Art Museum by putting both a library and a center for the contemporary arts in the same building. Out of the 681 entries, with the brief of designing “A cultural centre to consist of four major specialist activities: Museum of Modern Art; a reference library; a centre of industrial design; and a centre for music and acoustic research, together with supporting services such as car park restaurant etc., totalling 1 million sq ft for an approximate cost (in 1973)

of 280 million French francs, to be completed by December 1976.”(Banham and Partridge, 2012)The design scheme’s proposal by Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers was chosen as the winner, by a jury team made up of 10 people: Jean Prouve (president), Gaetan Picon (vice-president), Emile Aillaud, Sir Frank Francis, Philip Johnson, Michel Laclotte, Oscar Niemeyer, Wilhelm Sandberg, Herman Liebaers and Henri Pierre Maillard. Piano and Rogers had chosen to expand the given brief by not ignoring specialist needs, for cultural activities, which was to design a centre not just for the tourists but also for the people who lived in the neighbourhood. They aimed to create a truly dynamic and well-serviced meeting space where activities overlapped and that they did not want a centre divided into four water tight departments; which meant that the level of success would be fully depend on the level of public involvement.

Figure 18.0: Centre Georges Pompidou-Coloured pipes, ducts and conduits.

28

The Centre Georges Pompidou was celebrated as “the most avant-garde building in the world” when it first established in the 1970s. This avant-gardist novelty is one very important quality in making a building a Starchitecture, as it refers to a building which is experimental or innovative. In the previous explanation of how one could become a Starchitect, I mentioned that being innovative and experimental in designing a building is one of the few major keys to achieve that. This is why Centre Georges Pompidou is grouped under Starchitecture even though the word “Starchitecture” had not been used to describe a building such as Centre Georges Pompidou in 1970s. The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao and the Centre Georges Pompidou are both Starchitecture but they were built in two different centuries and separated by a gap of two decades. Studying both buildings allowed me to understand the needs of a city for a Starchitecture in a different time and place. The research into the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao has shown it has had very positive economic impact on

Bilbao and it is still doing so now. Therefore, what about Paris? What are the contributions of Centre Georges Pompidou to the city as a Starchitecture? In 1970s and earlier, museums had created a very strong impression in the community that they belonged in a conservative and traditional building that was until the Centre Georges Pompidou was built. Its existence has radically changed the paradigm of a museum as an urban monument with its strong high-tech language which was in complete contrast to the surrounding buildings. A comprehensive programme; makes it, a supposed-solemn building, become more interesting and approachable to a wider range of visitor from children to the elderly, from housewives to professionals, this was part of the scheme in the architects’ proposal. There was a lot of opposition from people who hated the idea of having a building which they said looks like an oil refinery in a historic district and an outcry arose against the construction of the glass and metal building located in

Figure 19.0: Centre Georges Pompidou - “Oil Refinery” Figure 20.0: Oil Refinery

29

the centre of Beaubourg neighbourhood. Moreover, even the architectural historian Mark Girouard made fun of it by describing the Rue de Renard side of the building as “a little like the back of a refrigerator, enormously enlarged, or a wireless when the back panel has been taken off.” (Silver, 1994) However, when the museum opened in December 1977, it became an instant success, and has been welcoming over 25,000 visitors per day, instead of 5000 visitors per day- its originally designed visitors’ capacity. This huge success in being attractive to the visitors would be mostly due to the uniqueness of the Museum with it being inside out; giving transparency and movement to the building when viewing it from outside in. These qualities allow passers-by, visitors who are using the plaza or the performers to have visual interaction with the activities that are going on in the building, without even needed them being inside the building. In addition to that recent research(Banham and Partridge, 2012) states that “all vertical connections are run along the east and west sides of the building. Corridors, ducts, fire stairs, escalators, lifts, columns and bracing, which normally interrupt floor spaces, are exposed on the outside”. Yes, Piano and Rogers had brilliantly avoided the construction difficulty by moving all the components outside the building and yet were able to show their architectural expression through the coloured components: stairs and elevator structures were painted silver grey, the electrical elements were painted yellow, the structure and largest ventilation components were painted white, ventilation was painted blue,

the elevator motor rooms were painted orange and lastly, any elements in the building that allow movement were painted red. In spite of the fact that this structure has overwhelmingly contrasted with the surrounding historic buildings, it brought the sense of novelty to the people in the city with cheerful colours, it was a new experience. Apart from being a new kind of building in the city, Centre Georges Pompidou has also played an important role in bringing the public together. “The layout of the centre highlighted the importance of the external spaces, which complete the institutional programme with various leisure and cultural activities, including street performance.” (Barranha, 2009) Piano and Rogers had purposefully used only half of the given site for the Museum and another half is utilised as public space for the interaction of people because there were not many public spaces available at that time. This intelligent decision by the architects not only fulfilled the requirements for various leisure and cultural activities as part of the design brief, it had also effectively encouraged local performers to show their impressive performances to the public, especially to those visitors from all over the world. Besides that, it has created more opportunities, or an easier path for the public to learn about each other’s culture by providing this plaza for cultural activities. On the other side of the building is the Rue du Renard road with busy traffic and this leaves the plaza as a quiet public space, the whole Centre was located on the eastern edge to block out the noise from the traffic. This technique of blocking traffic noise had been

30

quite popular in the 1970s which had already been applied by Alison and Peter Smithson in the Robin Hood Gardens to create a quiet zone within it and the Erskine team in backing up their Byker brick ‘wall’ in Newcastle against the threat of traffic noise. ( Banham and Partridge, 2012) However, unlike Byker, the Centre Georges Pompidou does not destroy the street view with its blind side as it is made up of interestingly coloured standing pipes, ducts and conduits.

A Museum of Modern Art, a reference library, a centre of industrial design and a centre for music and acoustic research: these are the facilities provided by the Centre as requested by The Ministries for Cultural Affairs, Finance and Education. However, Centre Georges Pompidou was not only about providing all of these; it was not only about bringing the world’s attention to Paris and attracting visitors; it was actually also about bringing different views of Paris into the local community, introducing the theme of the museum as belvedere. By having the escalator, that crosses the main façade, designed with a transparent tube as the enclosure, the visitors areable to enjoy 3 different views when they are moving up from the bottom to the top of the building: a view towards the spatial public space, followed by the view of the buildings in the surroundings, and finally the panoramic view over the city of Paris.

Conclusion: Chapter 1 In the research presented above about two of most iconic Starchitec-ture buildings: the Guggenheim and the Centre Georges Pompidou; I brought to light a very interesting situation in which both mainstream media and alter-native publications were focusing on similar aspects of each building. I chose to explore on one hand how the museum’s iconic image contributed posi-tively to the cultural aura of Bilbao in the world, and on the other hand, how the Centre Georges Pompidou successfully sit in its context.

A study of the Guggenheim’s economic impact on Bilbao made me re-alise how powerful an iconic design can be in generating a great part of the city’s income by attracting countless visitors. A smart government leader who can spot the right partner and architect is also an asset. Aside to that, the positive attitude displayed by Gehry the Starchitect: always accommodating with its clients and, innovative in his designs made an ideal partner to Thomas Krens and a highly regarded architect to the Basques’ government.

From what I have discovered, the Centre Georges Pompidou is greatly successful, with half of the site being used as a public space for various cul-tural activities such as street performances. It brings people of different back-grounds together for cultural interaction or leisure even if they are not visiting the Museum. Moreover, Piano and Renzo’s astounding courage in designing an inside-out building, with exposed colourful pipes, conduits and ducts in representing different functions for the building, has transformed the image of a museum as being a dull and historic building. Although the building looks like an “oil refinery” surrounded by historic buildings and would possibly affect the neighbourhood, on a street view, its existence is actually very modest hid-ing behind neighbouring buildings.

In conclusion, to be a good Starchitecture, the minimum requirement would be to be iconic and able to achieve its main goal. These two goals were for the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao - to improve the economy of Bilbao and the Centre Georges Pompidou - to bring the public together.

31

32

33

CHAPTER 2.1Case Study. Negative Side.

Guggenheim Museum Bilbao

34

To begin with this chapter, I would like to refer to the fabulist Aesop, who wisely remarked,

“Every truth has two sides; it is as well to look at both, before we commit ourselves to

either.”

In a similar manner I have discussed, the positive side of Starchitecture by examining the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao and the Centre Georges Pompidou. This lead me to believe that Starchitecture are may be/is? a great innovation, essential in today’s world. Nevertheless, it is necessary to explore the other side of the argument, the negative impact of these two buildings, representing Starchitecture, by using the same re-search sequence applied earlier. Hence, I will begin with the Museum and follow with the Centre Georges Pompidou.

The Guggenheim Museum, with its spectacularly beautiful and iconic image, has succeeded in drawing huge attention to the city of Bilbao and creating excellent economic repercussions to the whole Basque Country, with a growing number of visitors coming from all over the world. In spite of these positive outcomes, many important considerations are still being ignored. Kent (2003) remarks that “..., the project fails miserably as a public space, missing a significant opportunity to celebrate and support the cultural and community life that is pulsating throughout the city.” Indeed, unlike the Centre Georges Pompidou, the Museum lacks an effective public space to allow for an essential interaction among the visitors and to encourage cultural activities from the local community. Other than gazing at the undulating skin of building, there is nothing much to do outside. “Frank Gehry, the architect who de-signed the museum, appears afraid to support, or even acknowledge, human activity in and around his buildings.”(Kent, 2003) As a rule, a museum is meant to provide appropriate spaces to showcase various types of artworks in the best possible way, and to deliver the artists’ visions to the visitors. From an architectural perspective, the human activities outside the building are equally as important and should not be overlooked. The Guggenheim strived in bringing in artworks by numerous American artists such as Jenny Holzer, Clyfford, Mark Rothko (he emigrated from Russia to America); Anselm Kiefer and Francesco Clemente from Europe

Figure 21.0: Guggenheim Museum Bilbao- inefficient outdoor space.

35

as well as a few Basques’ artists. Most pieces came in reality from the Guggenheim’s permanent collection, in other words, the opportunity for artworks from Basques’ artists to be exhibited to the public is very little. So how does the Museum promote its local culture? If it really was the aim set out by the Guggenheim Foundation, I believe that the Starchitect Gehry should have tailored the design brief to the Basques’ artworks. This may have helped introducing the vibrant culture of this town or even the whole Country to the many foreign visitors. ““Our local culture still hasn’t integrated with the Guggenheim,” said Alfonso Martinez Cearra, the general manager of Bilbao Metropoli-30, a public-private partnership that is guiding the city’s revitalization. “This is still an industrial city.”” (Lee, 2007) A general opinion might be that a museum will undoubtedly develop people’s interest in art and create plenty of opportunities for local artists. But this is not al-ways true my study of the Guggenheim shows “’There’s no art market in Bilbao,” said Javier Gimeno Martiñez-Sapiña, who owns a 20 year-old photo gallery. “I don’t think the Guggenheim has helped. It’s still very hard for local artists to sell art here. They have to go to Madrid or Barcelona.”’ (Lee, 2007) This disconcerting reality is made worst by the fact the museum has actually created many jobs for the residents, yet the artists themselves are left behind. Moreover, through my research, I have realised that Gehry’s arrogant design has

given a wrong impression to the community, as an engineering student, Ikel admits: “I’ve never been to the Guggenheim,” […] “It’s for tourists.” This astoundingly huge structure offering no other activities than its internal exhibitions has forgotten the local community. If someone is not particularly interested in the artworks exhibited in the Museum, then he/she would have no other reason to go there. Then one might asks, “What if I wish to go there for a stroll along the Nervión River nearby?” My answer would be to recommend, “a stroll along the river next to the Zubizuri Footbridge by Santiago Calatrava instead.”

Last but not least, the Guggenheim Museum has we know is great in terms of its unconventional and innovative form, but not in terms of security. According to Kent’s experience mentioned earlier in his article, he witnessed mugging of two young men on an old couple outside the Museum, behind the reflective titanium walls. (Kent, 2003) Gehry’s interest in crazy forms has indirectly created blank walls that contribute to nothing but a space with high crime rate. “We later told police about it, and they told us that there are muggings in that same location very frequently.”(Kent, 2003) It is the Starchitect’s responsibility to avoid this situation from happening by keeping in mind safety regulations.

36

“I

37

CHAPTER 2.2Case Study. Negative Side.

Centre Georges Pompidou

38

Compare to the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, Centre Georges Pompidou is however a very different type of building to look at when considering its negative side; even though they are both Starchitecture. And it seems that Centre Georges Pompidou had much less criticism from the media or the public since its opening. But, with a twenty years gap; in a totally different environment and designing approach; it will be very interesting to know how different the shortcomings of the Centre were from the Guggenheim.

When Piano and Rogers were building the Centre Georges Pompidou after they won the competition in 1971, they were both aged below 40. They were not totally trusted by the client at the very beginning, but they still made it through at the end. This couple of young architects had successfully or I should say “courageously” got the Centre built without many compromises as Banham and Partridge (2012) in their recent article stated “The existence of the great model of the final design shows how final that design already was by late 1972; the earlier models show how little has changed conceptually from the first competition design.”. It was their right to have insisted on their design proposal so they could even claim that they got the design right in the first place, but they should have agreed to some reasonable changes in a period when the design was far less complex. (Banham and Partridge, 2012) A design such as, the Centre Georges Pompidou, with minimal compromises from the architects, has eventually created problems, after it was constructed and

opened to the public. And the problems mostly fall under the management of the building.

The restaurant on the fifth floor of the Centre Georges Pompidou is an obvious example that has been facing management shortcoming due to the careless design. At Beaubourg, it is pretty easy to fit in offices, exhibition spaces, book stacks, and seating areas due to the principle of Renzo and Piano, which is to provide as much open flexible space in the interior as possible. However, the flexibility principle of the building is pushed to the extreme test by having a restaurant on the top floor. (Silver, 1994) This is true as many problems have to be dealt with by the restaurant being on the floor and outdoors such as: food deliveries, maintaining reasonable acoustics, ventilation and a dining atmosphere for the diners. Besides that, the administrators of the building made the situation even worse by franchising the restaurant to an autoroute catering operator.(Silver, 1994) Hence, although the restaurant provides beautiful panoramic views of the city at this level, it is still definitely more practical to have put

Figure 22.0: Centre Georges Pompidou- top floor restaurant.

39

it on the ground floor instead, in terms of management convenience and efficiency.

Other than the restaurant, there is also a management failure at the ground floor. In the initial plan, eleven entrances were designed by the team to allow access from all four sides of the Centre Georges Pompidou. They decided that there should not be a main entrance at all so that people would be allowed to cross through the building from any direction they wanted to. Unfortunately, the whole design concept was reversed by the management from circulation to infiltration. In other words, the north and south doors were all blocked to create more rooms for display, leaving one tiny entrance on the piazza side. (Silver, 1994) And now, the cross-circulation plan that was prepared by the design team has gone, even though the intention of the management was to control the crowds entering the building. By relating this to the flexible principle and the uncompromised attitude of the architects during the early designing stage, I strongly believe that the architects should be responsible for this management failure. That was because they have contradicting themselves by allowing flexible use of the spaces in the building but would not compromise and come up with better spaces for certain usse. Hence, when the exhibition spaces in the building are insufficient, without any extra exhibition rooms being available, the administrators will have no choice but to apply the flexible principle by closing all the other doors apart from the main entrance for extra rooms for display.

“Was Beaubourg’s particular design intention of uninterrupted space too uncompromising?” (Silver, 1994) This question posed by Silver leaves the architect with two important choices; principle or low cost? But what made me to say so? An uninterrupted floor span of 48m with each storey being 7m high without even putting in a single column? It is understandable that the design team was trying to maximise the floor area to accommodate four types of facilities within the same building. However, was that really necessary? Would not be adding a row of columns down the centre with the 44.8m spanning truss girder 2.85m deeps being half of its depth a better option to save cost? I do not know which one would be better, but at least I know that the architects had chosen to be uncompromising and they were happy to have maintained clear principles. Piano says, “Once you put the column in the center, it doesn’t only mean to put the column. Then it becomes perfectly logical. Then you put centrally all the system of feeding the building. This other building may be fantastic, I don’t know. But in a sense, our building’s quality, its value, is in its extremity.” (Silver, 1994) So, what do you think?

Figure 23.0: Centre Georges Pompidou- Uninterrupted floors.

40

Conclusion: Chapter 2

A complete opposite to chapter 1, chapter 2has discussed most of the shortcomings of both the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao and the Centre Georges Pompidou. In spite of these the facts that these two buildings have achieved the goals that were set for them, their shortcomings in operation as buildings should not be ignored in order to arrive at a solution to make Starchitecture a better architecture.

We have seen how effectively the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao is in boosting the economy of Bilbao in terms of a richer government and better quality of life for the community as many jobs opportunity have been created as discussed in chapter 1. However, in chapter 2, the research showed that the Guggenheim Museum does not work well with the community in promoting the “real Bilbao”. A Swiss architect Miroslav Sik says, “…Look at photos of the Guggenheim Bilbao, for example. It is a beautiful museum, but it doesn’t work with Bilbao. People going there to visit the Museum are not interested in Bilbao. The Guggenheim is like a Reich cathedral. It is like architecture is becoming just like a religion or pure aesthetics…” (Mascheroni, 2012) What he says has accurately described the Guggenheim Museum and matches with my research outcomes.

Compared to the Guggenheim Museum, the Centre Georges Pompidou has worked very successfully with the community as the provided facilities and public space have been very useful and beneficial for the community. Nevertheless, part of the management in the Centre has gone against the architects’ principle. It sounds that the administrators of the Centre are using the building in the wrong way, but it is the uncompromising attitude of the architects that has caused it.

In short, with the existence of these critical shortcomings in Starchitecture, it will be very hard to convince the major community to accept it to be built everywhere.

41

CONCLUSION

Possible Improvements for Starchitecture

42

In the early stages of my study of the Guggenheim Museum and the Centre Georg-es Pompidou; I only knew that they were both highly regarded by the critique, very iconic and had become the landmark of their respec-tive city. For these reasons, I picked them as case studies to illustrate “successful” examples of Starchitecture.

Philip Johnson, one of the most re-spected architects of the 20/21st century even described the Guggenheim Museum as “the greatest building of our time”. This auda-cious statement comforted me in my choice of building to exemplify the perfect model of Starchitecture. However, my opinion changed throughout my research: I do not know the precise aspects Johnson was referring to when giving such a compliment, but I now feel that even the “greatest” building has his flaws.

Taking the benefits and learning from the detrimental effects of each building, I concluded that: to create good Starchitecture, three very important elements must be taken into account. These are the following: people, culture and city. Why people first? Because every aspects I looked at was in some way related to people, such as cultural activities, public space, being iconic, better security etc. They all work toward the same thing- people. Whether it is the visitors or the users of the

public space or even the passers-by, the archi-tecture must first satisfy their needs. In the case of the Guggenheim Museum, it works perfectly in terms of tourism but not with the cultural identity of the city. The Centre Georges Pompidou in comparison received much less criticisms than the Museum after opening: simply because it fulfils its basic requirements. However, the Centre too has its own problems, it terms of administration, as mentioned in earlier chapter.

The next element that follows is cul-ture. Why not city? Many people might think that Starchitecture has to do with promoting the city. No, I believe this is wrong. We should never forget that the culture of each city is what makes them unique. However, it is almost impossible for Starchitecture to rep-resent the culture of any particular city. This is because, from what I have learnt through my study, Starchitecture is always iconic in an unconventional way. If Starchitecture is going to fit into the culture, then it would not be known as Starchitecture anymore. Nonetheless, a Starchitecture building can still promote the culture through a dedicated space for example. The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, again, fails in this respect because it offers limited opportunities for local artists to exhibit their work while the Centre Georges Pompidou is surrounded by public spaces for

43

cultural activities. City comes last. This is a critical aspect as Starchitecture is meant to promote the name of a city to the whole world. In most cases in Starchitecture, such as with the Guggenheim Museum, visitors are flocking to Bilbao for the museum itself but not many of them are interested in the city. This is the main reason why up to now, the inhabitants of this lively city are still not very proud of it.

In conclusion, while there may be many aspects to be considered when design-ing a Starchitecture building, because each would have its own requirements, I believe that these three elements of people, culture and city are the most important: they are indissociable, universal to any type of Starchi-tecture, and therefore inform new solutions for future evolution.

44

BIBLIOGRAPHY& IMAGES REFERENCE

45

Books

Bruggen, C. V., 1997. Frank O. Gehry: Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. London: Guggenheim Museum Publications.

Iloniemi, L., 2004. Is It All About Image?How PR Works in Architecture. Academy Press.Isenberg, B., 2009. Conversations with Frank Gehry. New York: Knopf.

Jencks, C., 2005. The Iconic Building. London: Frances Lincoln.

Piano, R., 1997. The Renzo Piano Logbook. London: Thames and Hudson.

Silver, N., 1994. The Making of Beaubourg: A Building Biography of the Centre Pompidou, Paris. Cam-bridge: The MIT Press.

Tzonis, A., 2000. Santiago Calatrava: The Poetics of Movement. London: Thames and Hudson.

Online Magazine

Banham, R. and Partridge, J., 2012. 1977 May: The Pompidou Centre, The “Pompodolium”, The Ar-chitectural Review, [online] Available at: < http://www.architectural-review.com/archive/1977-may-the-pompidou-centre-the-pompodolium/8627187.article> [Accessed 22 December 2012]

Mascheroni, L., 2012. Miroslav Sik: anti-starchitecture, Domus, [online] Available at: <http://www.domusweb.it/en/interview/miroslav-ik-anti-starchitecture/> [Accessed on 07 October 2012]

Scher, P., 2011. Starchitect, Metropolis, [online] Available at: <http://www.metropolismag.com/sto-ry/20110414/starchitect > [Accessed 20 November 2012]

Tyrnauer, M., 2010. Architecture in the Age of Gehry, Vanity Fair, [online] Available at: < http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/08/architecture-survey-201008?currentPage=all]> [Accessed on 15 December 2012]

46

Online Newspaper Articles

Lee, D., 2007. Bilbao, 10 Years Later, The New York Times, [online] Available at: < http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/travel/23bilbao.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0> [ Accessed on 05 January 2013]

Unpublished Work

Barranha,H.,(in press) Beyond the Landmark: the effective contribution of museum architecture to urban renovation: paper presented at the Interantional Conference City Futures in a Globalising World, organized by the European Urban Research Association and Universidade Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, 2009. Available at < http://www.cityfutures2009.com/PDF/84_Barranha_Helena.pdf> [Ac-cessed 15 December 2012]

Websites

Ethan, K., 2003. Hall of Shame: Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. [online] Available at: < http://www.pps.org/great_public_spaces/one?public_place_id=827> [Accessed on 29 December 2012]

47

Images References

Cover image-Guggenheim Museum, Spain, Landscape. [ Image Online] Available at: < http://wallpapershi.net/guggenheim-museum-spain-landscape/> [Accessed 12 January 2013]

Figure1.0-Schoendorf, E., 2010. AD Classics: Centre Georges Pompidou / Renzo Piano + Richard Rogers. [Image Online] Available at: <http://www.archdaily.com/64028/ad-classics-centre-georges-pompidou-renzo-piano-richard-rogers/> [ Accessed 20 December 2012]

Figure2.0-Residential Starchitects on the Rise in New York.[Image Online] Available at: <http://blog.2modern.com/2008/03/residential-sta.html> [ Accessed 20 December 2012]

Firgure3.0-danielrolnik, 2012. So Not Bored Fashion Week. [Image Online] Available at: <http://danielrolnik.deviantart.com/art/So-Not-Bored-Fashion-Week-312112963> [ Accessed 16 January 2012]

Firgure4.0-THE SOLOIST - WALT DISNEY HALL. [Image Online] Available at: <http://www.awesomestories.com/assets/the-soloist-walt-disney-hall> [ Accessed 22 January 2012]

Firgure5.0-Santiago Calatrava hits back at critics over cost. [Image Online] Available at: <http://www.phaidon.com/agenda/architecture/articles/2012/june/29/santiago-calatrava-hits-back-at-critics-over-cost/> [ Accessed 20 December 2012]

Firgure6.0-Guggenheim Museum, Spain, Landscape. [ Image Online] Available at: < http://wallpapershi.net/guggenheim-museum-spain-landscape/> [Accessed 12 January 2013]

Firgure7.0-Schoendorf, E., AD Classics: Centre Georges Pompidou / Renzo Piano + Richard Rogers. [Image Online] Avail-able at: <http://www.archdaily.com/64028/ad-classics-centre-georges-pompidou-renzo-piano-richard-rogers/> [ Accessed 20 December 2012]

Firgure8.0-Why Choose A Boutique PR Firm? [Image Online] Available at: <http://ajgpr.com/public-releations/why-choose-a-boutique-pr-firm/> [ Accessed 2January 2012]

Firgure9.0-Video: 3 Ways To Find Out Who’s Talking About You On Twitter. [Image Online] Available at: <http://artsnfood.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/frank-gehry-s-late-start-whos-in.html> [ Accessed 20 December 2012]

48

Firgure10.0-Cultura, Cultura Política y Económica. [Image Online] Available at: <http://culturapoliticayeconomica.blogs-pot.co.uk/2009/07/zaha-hadid-la-arquitecta-mas-famosa-del.html> [ Accessed 29 December 2012]

Firgure11.0-Frank Gehry’s late success + What makes a GREAT restaurant? [Image Online] Available at: <http://artsnfood.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/frank-gehry-s-late-start-whos-in.html> [ Accessed 20 December 2012]

Firgure12.0-Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, Spain.[Image Online] Available at: <http://wallpaperswide.com/guggenheim_museum_bilbao_spain-wallpapers.htmll> [ Accessed 22 January 2012] Firgure13.0-“Castle Guanajuato” . [Image Online] Available at: <http://www.cityvisions.com/mexico/guanajuato.htm> [ Accessed 20 January 2012]

Firgure14.0-What to see in Bilbao. [Image Online] Available at: <http://www.friendlyrentals.com/blog/en/bilbao/general/tourist_attractions_bilbao-posts-121-1_2413.htm> [ Accessed 20 December 2012]

Firgure15.0-Drdevience, 2009. New York Guggenheim Museum. [Image Online] Available at: <http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/new-york/images/1106209/title/guggenheim-museum-wallpaper> [ Accessed 20 December 2012]

Firgure16.0-Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, Spain. [Image Online] Available at: <http://architecturalprojects.infrawindow.com/frank-gehry/frank-gehry-projects/guggenheim-museum-bilbao-spain/> [ Accessed 20 December 2012]

Firgure17.0-Group Exhibition at Centre Pompidou. [Image Online] Available at: <http://www.oleukena.com/tag/centre-pompidou/> [ Accessed 23 January 2012]

Firgure18.0-The Danger of Meta: Pompidou and David Foster Wallace’s “Octet”. [Image Online] Available at: <http://ronosaurusrex.com/metablog/2010/10/02/the-danger-of-meta-pompidou-and-octet-in-a-negative-light/> [ Ac-cessed 20 January2012]

Firgure19.0-Pompidou Centre plans to go global. [Image Online] Available at: <http://culture360.org/news/pompidou-cen-tre-plans-to-go-global/> [ Accessed 29 December 2012]

Firgure20.0-Naftan oil refinery, Novopolotsk. [Image Online] Available at: <http://www.belarus.by/rel_image/1012> [ Ac-cessed 17 January 2012]

49

Firgure21.0-Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao. [Image Online] Available at: <http://www.spainisculture.com/en/museos/viz-caya/museo_guggenheim_bilbao.htmll> [ Accessed 20 January 2012]

Firgure22.0- An Afternoon at The Centre Pompidou. [Image Online] Available at: <http://parisaav.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/afternoon-at-centre-pompidou.html> [ Accessed 20 January 2012]

Firgure23.0-LUCIEN FREUD (et moi) AT THE POMPIDOU.[Image Online] Available at: <http://newnatalie.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/lucien-freud-et-moi-at-pompidou.html> [ Accessed 23 December 2012]

50

51The End