'The case was made for using architecture to revitalize the economies of postindustrial cities by establishing a brotherhood of “superstar” architects who would generate spectacles bolstered by our reviews, creating “architourism,” or what has become known today as the “Bilbao Effect.”'
Metropolis
6 Comments
i read this in print last week. interesting, but i'm not sure what to make of it. trying to spawn some conspiracy theory perhaps...
Personally, i thought it was an interesting read. In my mind the article made clear that the much touted Bilbao effect is in fact more similar to what happenswith Olympic sites post Olympics. Typically the stadia etc become massive drains on public finances, because they often do not become centers of city life as is promised. Basically tax payers paying for public art msuems is find. But don't assume that just because you build a pretty building your city will suddenly take off.
I though the author made a good point. It i sfine if you want to privilege art over sports, but in reality museum building is little different than the massive public spending that goes into new sports stadia like Atlantic Yards, or the new Nationals stadium in Washington etc.....
Woops i just realized i was in fact confused the article i was referencing is this one in Arch Record....
Debunking a myth about museums that pay for themselves
I would prefer to think of "The Bilbao Effect" as a sleeper sci-fi movie from 1991.
is this a mock interview?
So we are finally scratching the surface of the very much enclosed circle of those who decide what's good and what's bad.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.