C O N T E X T 1 3 8 : M A R C H 2 0 1 5 41 criticisms can go on, something that has happened with the Guggenheim Museum of Bilbao, younger sister to the New York Guggenheim. It was designed by Frank Gehry and opened to acclaim in 1997. Its reflective curves, covered in panels reminiscent of fish scales, are designed to catch the light so that it appears other-worldly. It has even been described as a dream ship moored alongside the Nervion River. The interior is designed around a large atrium with views over Bilbao’s estuary and the hills beyond. This new museum building has had such a powerful influence on the city that this is now known globally as the ‘Bilbao effect’. The Guggenheim was purposely built in Bilbao’s dilapidated port area, once the city’s main source of income, as part of the efforts to revitalise the city. The Basque government bravely covered all of the $100 million construction costs in what can only be described as a gamble. In the first three years of its existence more than four million tourists visited the museum, generating 500 million euros in added economic activity and leading to an increase in tax income for the Basque country of 100 million euros. In effect, and rather astonishingly given the massive financial failures of other, recent public prestige buildings such as the Millennium Dome, the museum paid for itself in three years. The Guggenheim is generally a well-loved building, by the public and academics alike, but it has its critics. Project for Public Spaces, an international educational organisation, has said that the Guggenheim ‘fails miserably as a public space.’ PPS has dismissed the building as being a mere icon, degrading to civic and cultural life. Other public buildings in recent years have faced much worse criticism. Take the Ak Saray building in Ankara, Turkey’s newly-built, white presidential palace of 1,000 rooms, with botanical gardens, state-of-the-art security and even nuclear bunkers. The criticism surrounding the complex is not helped by the fact that it has been built in an atmosphere of extreme public anger. Its very presence defies a court order established to protect the green space on which it stands. Added to this there has been fierce criticism over the massive expenditure required. Turkey’s President Erdogan responded by saying that ‘in this country there are some people who put bricks together and some who can not even dream about it’. The Bombay Sapphire headquarters, the Guggenheim and the Ak Saray buildings are all recent. How did prestige buildings fare in the past? Were they subject to the same level of scrutiny and criticism? The Hoover Building along the A40 in Perivale, London, is a prime example of historic, commercial, prestige architecture. It was a constructed when there was an almost tangible longing for grandiose, modern projects. The 1930s, at the time, were viewed as being a postwar period, not inter-war. People were full of faith in a bright, war-free future for all. For some while, and until the recession really bit, this was a time of rebuilding and growth which is reflected in the vast expansion of the London suburbs during this decade. The Hoover building was and is as much an essay in commercial presence as it was about lavish eye-catching architecture. On the face of it the building’s functional purpose was to house the manufacturing works of Hoover. In reality it was just as much about advertising the great success of Hoover as a company. Constructed from 1931 to 1938, it would have been startling to most people then. It is still eye-catching today.When it was being built it stood out as a beacon of confidence in the future; its electrifying, night-time illuminations being part of the original scheme. The positioning of the Hoover building along one of the main arterial routes into and out of London is no accident. Here Hoover could advertise to the wealthy, identifying the company with modernity and the technological advancement associated with the new fashion for driving. In the 1930s driving was excitingly novel; an enjoyable hobby for the wealthy and all about the potential of human beings to innovate.When the building opened the press called it ‘the modern palace of industry’. It did indeed dazzle like a palace, mainly due to its being covered The Hoover Building: the windows, rising through the two storeys, amount to an art-deco version of a giant classical order (Photo: Ewan Munro)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=