Page History

The Guggenheim Museum was [introduced to BLV|http://www.bilbaointernational.com/en/old-bilbao/] in the 1990s with the intention of supporting the rejuvenation of the "derelict neighborhood," with the museum as [the "hallmark" of a new cultural haven|http://www.designbuild-network.com/features/feature1506/] (Vicario and Monje, 2384), an integral component of the "reimaging" of the area as "the artists' district' of the city" (Vicario and Monje, 2394). This development has become "_the model_ of urban regeneration for other cities affected by decline." Although the strategy succeeded in "creating a new city image associated with art and culture," it was not effective in improving the lives of average citizens. In fact, the introduction of the museum brought with it a trend toward the [gentrification|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification] of the neighborhood: Real estate prices rose as the location became more attractive, forcing out those who could not afford to pay to live there (Vicario and Monje, 2396). Changes in the environment proved a superficial solution to systemic and enduring problems. For example, the changes resulted in "the displacement of 'problematic' sectors (drug addicts and dealers, prostitutes) to other deprived areas of the city," but ultimately, "any 'normal' residents lacking sufficient income to stay in the area" would also be pushed out (Vicario and Monje, 2398). The effects of gentrification patterns, then, resulted in negative consequences for the area that may outweigh the benefits of housing an attractive cultural site such as the Guggenheim. They leave in place underlying socioeconomic problems and destroy the lives of ordinary citizens who have lost their homes. Even Ward's assessment that the only real benefit of "cultural investment" in down-trodden areas is the "\[refreshment of\] the local soul" rings hollow if citizens cannot afford to stay there and reap the benefits of living in a flourishing cultural mecca.