Lightning Strikes Bilbao
Our Turkish tour guide Kaz, a well-educated and very enlightened man of the world sent us an article from The Guardian today on the subject of the twentieth anniversary of the Guggenheim Museum of Bilbao. Given the enlightened journalistic presence of The Guardian, that message reminds me that Kaz is a first rate guru to follow, not only in his native land of Turkey (where we last saw him), but almost anywhere he might guide us. The article discusses the very interesting aspects of the creation of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, and how those elements came together quite uniquely to uplift the city and region by putting it on the map with a globally renowned architectural masterpiece that is both emblematic of this very bespoke setting and cultural identity, and just controversial enough to draw interest and attention from all quarters. The piece goes on the describe efforts by other cities or regions which have tried to recreate that success with similar standout projects.
Cities are institutions, and institutions are entities, and entities are like organisms, and organisms go through lifecycles as do all living things. When cities are young they struggle into being by trying to gain scale and critical mass. They want to have all the resources that their citizenry need to be competitive with their neighbors or the world (depending on the breadth of their outlook). They then go through the same stage of adolescence we as humans go through, which is best characterized as a search for identity. Adopting an identity has a cost. It might involve spending on features or services to the city and/or it might involve eschewing some while it embracing others. Then a city goes about its adulthood as any of us do, seeking successes when and where available and accepting failures as inevitably it must. But then there comes a moment when a city is past its prime and looking to one of several paths. It may slowly and sadly slip into decline and obsolescence or it might rage against the dying of the light and seek redemption through some means. Twenty years ago, Bilbao reached its moment of truth and stumbled (not without great good fortune and effort) into a profound and revitalizing place of grace. Now we all know Bilbao in a way that the city fathers of twenty years ago could only have dreamed of.
I have been a participant in such an endeavor and dedicated six years to a seemingly worthwhile effort that failed and had great imbedded cautionary tales for others. You see, before the turn of the Millennium, the City of London was suffering from a similar decline in its stature and wanted a new face to put on for the new Millennium. The powers that be settled on the building of a megastructure which became known as the London Eye, a 443 foot observation wheel set on the southern bank of the River Thames with views across the historic old sites of Landon’s heraldic past. It was a raging success and is now an iconic addition to the London skyline.
That success, not unlike the success of Bilbao with its Frank Gehry inspired Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, has led to the truest form of flattery, an attempt to imitate that success. In the commercial world, it is often deemed foolish to innovate and get out ahead of trends and assured adoption by your clients. The pioneers usually lie by the side of the trail with arrows in them while the second adopters and copiers go by in their wagons to settle the territory and prosper. But in the arcane world of art and perhaps especially in the intersection of art and public works, it seems that imitation is the surest route to defeat.
We spent six years at the New York Wheel, along with the City of New York, trying to replicate the success of the London Eye and we failed miserably. Everyone was envious of the success of the London Eye in transforming the skyline and tourism posture of London and New York, being an even bigger tourism market than London, wanted to further solidify their position by adding not an equivalently sized observation wheel, but a markedly bigger observation wheel. We set out to build a 630 foot wheel, which would be 42% bigger and would correct all the first-time mistakes of the London Eye such that the visitor experience would be enhanced. The New York Wheel would do as much or more for the image of New York City as the London Eye had done for London.
The problem was that the elements that came together to create the London Eye were very committed and very unique. They were not about putting London on the map (it was already on the map in a big way and for centuries), but rather to celebrate the jubilee of the turn of the Millennium. It was actually planned as a temporary installation and did not profess to greatness, but just as a fun part of a much bigger event. The architects and engineers established the parameters of the structure based on what they believed was achievable and, despite a few minor hiccups (one of which had them missing the Millennium deadline by three months), they were able to accomplish what they set out to do. Had they realized how successful it would be, they could have planned it even better and made it an even bigger success.
Since then, four other large observation wheels have been attempted and they have all had major problems. The common problem consists of a combination of trying to one-up the original one way or another, trying to build it bigger, making it a game-changer for the city involved and losing sight of the actual sight lines of what was to be observed. First came the Singapore Flyer, opened in 2008 at 541 feet. It is ugly and started by turning the wrong way (such things matter in the world of wheels), and went into bankruptcy before being sold at deep discount to an new owner. The Singapore weather also requires it to shut down regularly due to potential lighting strikes. Next came the Las Vegas High Roller at 551 feet, opened in 2014. It was caught up in the Dubai World financial debacle. It was conceived less for the views and more to draw gambling crowds, which it has never done due to its odd location off the Strip. Then there was the race between the New York Wheel (scheduled to be 630 feet and to open in 2017) and the Ain Dubai at 889 feet that was supposed to open in 2017, but only opened in 2021. NY Wheel went into receivership due to the contractors inability to execute despite full performance guarantees (resulting in an ongoing law suit). Ain Dubai had the same problem with the exact same contractor team (which they then swapped out and took legal action against the failed contractors). NYW was trying to bring tourists to NYC by taking them out to Staten Island since the City wanted to better promote that borough rather than insure success of the project. Ain Dubai positioned itself on an artificial island in the Gulf to promote real estate sales and had an ownership backing from the Emir such that whatever money was needed to complete, so was it done.
My point is simple. The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao was a matter of lightning striking a creative idea and leading to great and largely non-repeatable success. The London Eye was the same and worked well for London. Neither is easy to repeat because unlike commercial innovation, the serendipity of creation is a spark that can only be spontaneously combusted and not artificially recreated to meet some elaborate and grand scheme. We have just toured the Guggenheim Bilbao and must say that it is certainly as great as its reputation implies. If you go to Staten Island you can see the remains of $450 million of investor money in the ground where a wheel was supposed to stand and no lighting is striking as of yet.