Guggenheim Museum Bilbao

Central Bilbao on the waterfront
Bilbao, Spain

Submitted by: Ethan Kent

One of the world’s most famous buildings, this museum is in many ways an attractive and impressive piece of architecture. Unfortunately, as a public space it is extremely unsuccessful -- even dangerous.

Click on any image for slide show

For more images of Guggenheim Museum Bilbao or other places, try searching our Image Collection

Why It Doesn't Work

A spectacularly beautiful and sculptural building, the Guggenheim Bilbao succeeds monumentally in its efforts as an iconic building, and has drawn much attention to the city of Bilbao. However, 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.

Situated prominently on the waterfront near the center of Bilbao, the building interrupts the life of the city, and is an insult to pedestrians who would like to use the space for anything other than gawking at the building. Frank Gehry, the architect who designed the museum, appears afraid to support, or even acknowledge, human activity in and around his buildings. The museum may bring people to Bilbao, but it only degrades the civic and cultural life that makes people proud to live in the city. Moreover, as a symbol of successful investment in architecture, it is limiting the role of architecture to mere icon.

It gets attention, but as is the case with most attention seekers, when asked for attention in return, it gives little back. The building ignores the riverfront that gives it prominence, it ignores the comfort of the people that come to its vast public spaces, and worst of all, it ignores the very city to which it is meant to draw attention.

Walking through Bilbao, the building acts as a distraction from some of the most vibrant public spaces and sophisticated community life in Europe. While the power of the iconic building has been broadcast around the world, it can be easily interpreted as an attack on human activity and civic life.

While Bilbao as a city may be near the height of civilization and Frank Gehry’s building is an icon serving as a beacon of the city’s status, it also is a public space that shunts the very civilization it is supposed to celebrate. Architecture emerged as a revered profession because of the way successful buildings can reflect and support a civilization, a culture and a functional purpose. Gehry’s building seems to fail in all these regards and is therefore doing a great disservice to Bilbao, and also to the profession of architecture.

Great architecture and great public spaces should go hand and hand, but unfortunately, they seldom do. The arrogance of the Guggenheim Bilbao and the approach to design and development it portends is an affront to public spaces everywhere. The public spaces around this building are a void in the civic life of a great city.

One might argue that this building has brought attention to Bilbao, but in many ways that attention has been a distraction, or at best an ephemeral sugar high, for a city that has some of the best public spaces in Europe. Because the museum not only ignores context, but also pushes away and hides Bilbao’s rich culture and social life, it is a net loss for the city.

What Puts Guggenheim Museum Bilbao in the Hall of Shame?

Though it is near the center of the city, the Guggenheim shuns any relation to its context. The building challenges locals and tourists (not to mentioned handicapped people) to enter some of the least inviting public spaces and entranceways anywhere.

The brutal design of the steps is demeaning to human beings. The endless blank and textureless surfaces are equally unfriendly. The lack of signage and amenity follow suit.

People pass through this space as quickly as possible as there is nothing to do here but be impressed by the architecture.

Bilbao is a very sociable city with a very sociable culture. This building has effectively banished social activity from its vast public spaces.

History & Background

I traveled to Bilbao on my honeymoon and was very excited to see the famous Guggenheim Museum and all that it has supposedly done for Bilbao. It was mid afternoon on a beautiful Saturday in September when we came upon the building. The well-traveled Jeff Koons flower puppy sculpture was in front, with some attractive seating and plantings in the foreground. Behind it was the inspiring sculptural building topped with the proud Guggenheim sign and an outdoor café below an awning, all still enticing us to come closer.

At this point I was sure this was going to be a great building with all kinds of innovative and modern place-creating design ideas that I could learn from and bring back to my work. But as we got closer, there were almost no people. What we thought was the entrance near the café turned out to only lead to a narrow back stair. The dynamic rhythm that we had experienced throughout the city and that had drawn us to the building suddenly stopped. The building seemed to want to separate itself from that rhythm through a void that transitioned the pedestrian to a separate, isolated experience.

After failing on our first guess at the entrance, we realized it was at the bottom of a staircase we were hoping to avoid. About 100 three foot deep steps curved down to a dark set of doors - they were the kind of steps where you are forced to step awkwardly on, starting with the same foot each time. The only people there were a middle aged couple who had stopped about half way up, apparently out of breath and needing rest and perhaps reassurance.

My wife and I endeavored to make the trip down. By the time we reached the bottom, we entered the building feeling small and unimportant – very differently from how we were feeling just a moment ago leaving the street grid. We entered the building, looked up at the admission price, and peered into the narrow cavern through which one was supposed to go further into the museum galleries. Without saying a word, we retreated out the door and headed back up the stairs.

Knowing the waterfront was on the other side of the building, we assumed that side of the building would have more amenities and be more friendly. Unfortunately, to get there required going down an even longer and equally uncomfortable set of stairs. The stairs led to another very large empty plaza that connected to the river. The waterfront side of the building consisted of a series or blank walls, hidden nooks, a reflecting pond that looked more like a moat, and a couple more sets of stairs that seemed to lead to nowhere. Even more than the front of the museum, this side was void of amenity, and void of people.

As we continued around the building along the waterfront, we came across the only amenities on that side of the museum. There were two flat backless cement benches lined up with three scrawny trees. This area is on a promontory in the river; the building is closest to the water here and there are views up and down the very attractive riverfront. Just looking at a map, it would be easy to assume that this might be the best place in the city where people might gather, pass some time, and experience the culture, food and social life of Bilbao.

There were four people in this space. There was a middle aged tourist couple (Actually the same couple that we saw resting on the entrance steps) sitting trying to figure out their digital camera. The other two people were young men standing separately against the blank reflective walls of the building. I took a couple pictures that perfectly demonstrate a William H. Whyte quote about blank walls, how they are dead zones that contribute nothing to a place.

Only seconds after I took the pictures, the two men ran over to the couple and mugged them – they simply grabbed the camera out of their hands and ran off. Anywhere else in Bilbao, we would have yelled something and there would have been people around to try stopping them. But instead, with no one else in sight to help, we felt isolated and vulnerable, and all we could do was watch. We later told police about it, and they told us that there are muggings in that same location very frequently.

In the span of 10 minutes that we spent around the museum, I witnessed the first mugging of my life -- and I’ve lived my entire life in New York City.

As we walked away from the museum, we tried to figure out what we had just experienced. As we got further away from the building, we were relieved to again experience what life is like without the burden of such oppressive design. We saw people starting to talk to each other again, others stopped and looked out at the water, enjoying the view. There was even a couple kissing on a bench.

User Comments:

> Add your own comment about Guggenheim Museum Bilbao

02/03/06 William Wolf said:

Ethan, what a great piece of writing on Bilbao's own entrant in the Hall of Shame. Back in the 1990s, the first pictures I saw of the Guggenheim made it look dreadful, but later photographic studies convinced me, as they did you, of the beauty of Gehry's building. But as you so ably point out, being a beautiful object is not at all the same as being a great public space. It's worrying to see the arrogance of an architect who can effectively kill social life by designing a monumental, oppressive structure. To be able to exclude human vibrancy is especially difficult in a country as warm and exuberant as Spain, but you clearly show that Gehry succeeded.

I was afraid something similar would happen with the Millennium Park music area that Gehry designed here in Chicago. It, too, is large and carries his unmistakeable mark. However, this structure works very well. It encourages people to congregate, admire, converse and pass through. It's open on all sides and invites passersby to reflect on noteworthy architecture that surrounds the part. What a shame that the Guggenheim fails to do this.

05/23/06 Ethan Kent said:

Dear Ethan Kent:

I am impressed by your analysis on the Guggenheim in Bilbao. It is for me one of the very few times that I can read a view with common sense; most of the comments around, seem to me, as produced in a state of fear (since the architect is "Divine" Gehry).

I share most of your views. As a public space is a complete failure. And the way to access the building is completely surrealistic. It is a icon, an object that really attracts the attention of the eye. That is real.

Other comments frequently seen around are a prove of human stupidity. For example: "Bilbao was a decadent ugly industrial city, until Gehry arrived and the city received life". These type of ridiculous statements have been written, without realising that Bilbao has one of the nicest XIX Century extensions (new town) of Spain; solid and beautiful buildings; and wonderful shops, cafes, restaurants, etc.

These new buildings recently built in Bilbao do not add a bit of quality to our city. Quite the opposite, most of them are terribly vulgar; built by extremely well travelled architects, but extremely vulgar. Travelling opens human´s mind, but one needs some departuring point of finesse and sophistication, and not just the rough and vulgar attitude of mere power.

Good text Mr. Kent.

All the best,

Javier Cenicacelaya Architect. Professor of Architecture Bilbao

04/12/07 kate brinn said:

wow such a completely parallel experience we had of gehry`s Guggenheim.I visited the museum with my partner who new much more about it than i did as i had only really seen a couple of photos and although i wanted to see it i could have stayed in bed the day we went.. we`d had a late night.but the impression it had on me would be far greater than i could imagine it stands today as my favorite piece of architecture i found it vibrant and inviting the day i visited there were people everywhere busker's the whole place buzzed it was an amazing place to be and a great museum. i really thought it complimented the city. i think you should go back and experience what it is like to see this vibrant city and museum when your not tainted by the bad experience of seeing a mugging, it may just have the lasting inspiring impression it had on me a second time around, i now study interior architecture.

06/27/07 kshitij dhyani said:

i think the person who has written this kind of a review has presented us with little more than lack of his credible knowledge about the theories and philosophies of architecture of the museum..i havnt been to the museum and my knowledge about it is highly second hand. but i have been reading about the architect himself and his philosophies and specially of role of deconstructivist philosophies in the new architecture.. i would request the author to go through them and then revisit the same building. the architect ahs been quite sucessful in achieving them. i think these kind of absurd criticism, is comparable to criticism of a teenage punk rocker towards classical music, which is mere based upon the lack of pure knowledge. besides that.. the whole propose of a decosntrcutivistic building 'is' to generate this kind of criticism... the new is the monster- jacques derrida

04/02/08 Morten Hindoe said:

I do agree with the criticism of the Guggenheim - it's too dominant at the beautiful river. 17-21/3 08 I stayed with a friend at Domine Hotel in front of the museum ( grey windows spoiled the view to the museum ) and day 1-3 it was "im-pletely com-possible" to communicate in english with the natives - and NO serving in local cafés - not even regrets. Day 3+4 we experienced that more than 1-1,5 km from the museum local people were helpful - and a lot spoke english - and we could dine. The 4. evening we saw an old lady stumble heavily on the sidewalk - we got her up sitting - and NOW a lot of the passing locals spoke english - she was transported to the hospital with a broken hip - one of the girls told us that english is obligatory in school ! And perhaps it calls for attention that "BilbaoTurismo"s own city-map has no kilometer-scale - so you don't know the distancies to walk before afterwards - too bad. I find it deeply indecent that this tourist-aversion still is practised over 10 years after the opening. It is the most inhospitable place I have ever visited ( and I am now 60 ! ) - but the surrounding districts are fascinating in every way ! So : next time I visit Bilbao I will not stay OR stay close to the museum !

07/18/09 Alex Groh said:

I personally can't claim to be an expert on classical music, or architecture even. But as a young, punk rock loving artist, I have had experience in life with both through a mother who taught Suzuki violin and a father who makes his living as a health care architect. Despite not being an expert in the fields, I can say from my experiences what I like to see and listen to. And after looking at the Bilbao Guggenheim, I can pretty well say that in my opinion, it's one of the ugliest buildings I've seen in my life. Because of that, I feel like I can understand why people might not want to hang around it too much. Looking at it from the perspective of an artist, it just feels massive in comparison to it's surroundings, and it seems out of scale. On top of that, I've been looking at photos of it while doing some research, and the vast majority all just seem to be missing colour. The whole thing seems largely gray and without any particular breaks in the building. As a sculpture, this piece would probably not get too much in the way of attention from your average layperson. It's an interesting building for the technical aspects of it, but as an aesthetic piece it feels a bit lacking. I could probably go on from my perspective, but I've hit the things most apparent to me. And like I said, I'm no expert, but it's usually been my experience that the best way to figure out if people are going to spend time around it, whether it's a sculpture, a plaza, or a room in a home, is to grab a few average Joe's off the street and ask them their opinion.

07/24/09 Sean Ruthen said:

Well everyone is a tourist with an opinion I suppose. Mr. Kent demonstrates how it is all too easy to take potshots at those of us who have weathered a long and hard road to attain our professionalism, while likewise demonstrating a short-sightedness wherein it is the media that has concocted this 'star-chitect' term. Bilabo is a public space that was arrived at through great volition by architects, planners, curators, and financiers alike - how easy it is at the end of it all to point the finger at one individual, and how revealing of the finger-pointer's complete lack of knowledge to what constitutes a true work of public space. I would say Mr. Gehry's gesture was not just intended as a sleight to Mr. Kent's unremarkable question, but to all those naysayers who have never had to aspire to anything more than a shallow and uninformed opinion.

09/24/09 Nathalie Winans said:

With all due respect to the efforts and credentials of architects or starchitects, a failed public space is a failed public space, regardless of how many individuals are involved in its elaboration. It's all the more disappointing when that space interrupts the public life of a bustling city. Just what constitutes successful public space? At its most basic, shouldn't it be a place that people use and enjoy? On that measure, the Guggenheim Bilbao is an unambiguous failure. That isn't finger-pointing, nor does it require an advanced degree to figure out. If anything, the no-man's land around the Guggenheim acts as an invisible velvet rope, keeping the rabble from spoiling the view of the Gehry masterpiece. Applicable here is Wilde's quote, "The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless." Art doesn't have to be useful. Buildings do. They are used, they are interacted with, and at this scale they are big enough to have significant implications for their surroundings and for the people who deal with them on a daily basis. By that measure, the Guggenheim Bilbao succeeds magnificently as a work of art and fails miserably as a component of the urban fabric. And there lies the challenge: to create buildings that are beautiful, useful, AND well suited to their context.