Star Architecture Spreads in Europe: Culture-Led Waterfront Projects Between 1990 and 2015

  • Davide PonziniEmail author
  • Mina Akhavan


This contribution is the first attempt to provide a systematic study of the spread of culture-led waterfront projects in Europe that are designed (or inclusive of substantial elements designed) by major transnational firms, often labelled as star architects. We introduce a new method for mapping transnational projects and firms, including a database covering design firms and details of their completed projects within the period 1990–2015. After describing the trajectories of such projects in Europe, this contribution traces the spread of star architecture projects before and after the opening of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao in 1997, one of the most reputed case of this kind, namely, a star architecture project for a cultural facility that is the centrepiece of a larger waterfront redevelopment master plan. By focusing on five case studies of similar projects being completed from the early 1990s to the mid-2010s (in Genoa, London, Oslo, Reykjavik and Lyon), we argue that, despite the spread of the belief in the regenerative power of single star architecture buildings (i.e., so-called “Bilbao effect”), the effects of such projects depend on a wider set of urban planning and policy actions. In addition, we observe that the spread might be due to the political legitimisation of projects in similar urban and planning conditions rather than the mere transfer of the same scheme.


Star architecture Transnational firms Culture-led projects Waterfront regeneration Master plan 


  1. Akhavan M (2015) Port development and port-city interface dynamics. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Politecnico di Milano.
  2. Bobbio R (2005) Complessità di rapporti e iniziative di integrazione fra la città e il porto di Genova. Portus 10:35–41Google Scholar
  3. Carmona M, Wunderlich FM (2012) Capital spaces: the multiple complex public spaces of a global city. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpenter J, Verhage R (2014) Lyon city profile. Cities 38:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castells M (1996) The rise of the network society. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. City of Oslo (2004) “The Fjord City”- the plans for urban development of the waterfront. Agency for Planning and Building Service.
  7. Clark TN (ed) (2004) The city as an entertainment machine. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  8. Czarniawska B (2002) A tale of three cities: or the glocalization of city management. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dean C, Donnellan C, Pratt AC (2010) Tate Modern: pushing the limits of regeneration. City Cult Soc 1(2):79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans G (2003) Hard-branding the cultural city – from Prado to Prada. Int J Urban Reg Res 27(2):417–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Faulconbridge JR (2010) Global architects: learning and innovation through communities and constellations of practice. Environ Plan A 42(12):2842–2858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fedeli V, Gastaldi F (2004) Pratiche strategiche di pianificazione. Riflessioni a partire da nuovi spazi urbani in costruzione. Franco Angeli, MilanGoogle Scholar
  13. Gonzalez S (2011) Bilbao and Barcelona “in motion”: how urban regeneration models “travel” and mutate in global flows of policy tourism. Urban Stud 48(7):1397–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guggenheim M, Söderström O (2010) Re-shaping cities: how global mobility transforms architecture and urban form. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Gutman R (1988) Architectural practice: a critical view. Princeton Architectural Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Harvey D (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism., Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography 71(1):3-17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayes D (2009) From dome to dome: exploring cultural flagships and their contribution to achieving regeneration goals. In: Kent T, Brown R (eds) Flagship marketing: concepts and places. Routledge, London, pp 91–106Google Scholar
  18. Hofseth M (2008) The new opera house in Oslo–a boost for urban development? Urban Res Pract 1(1):101–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jóhannesson B (2013) Now you have one more excuse to come to Iceland! Iceland Issues and Images 8(1):36Google Scholar
  20. Kloosterman RC (2010) Building a career: labour practices and cluster reproduction in Dutch architectural design. Reg Stud 44(7):859–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knox PL, Taylor PJ (2005) Toward a geography of the globalization of architecture office networks. J Archit Educ 58(3):23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Konior A (2018) The revitalization of the Old Harbor in Reykjavik by a cultural economy. Space Cult (online first):1–15Google Scholar
  23. Malone P (1996) City, capital and water. Routledge, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Marshall R (2001) Waterfronts in post-industrial cities. Spon Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. McCann E (2011) Urban policy mobilities and global circuits of knowledge: toward a research agenda. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 101(1):107–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McNeill D, Tewdwr-Jones M (2003) Architecture, banal nationalism and reterritorialization. Int J Urban Regional Res 27(3):736–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nastasi M, Ponzini D (2018) Towards a photographic urbanism? Images iconizing cities and swaying urban transformation. In: Lindner C, Meissner M (eds) The Routledge companion to urban imaginaries. Routledge, London, pp 217–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ockman J (2004) New politics of the spectacle: ‘Bilbao’ and the global imagination. In: Lasansky D, McClaren B (eds) Architecture and tourism: perception, performance and place. Berg, Oxford, pp 227–240Google Scholar
  29. Olds K (2001) Globalization and urban change: capital, culture, and Pacific Rim mega-projects. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Palermo PC, Ponzini D (2015) Place-making and urban development: new challenges for contemporary planning and design. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Ponzini D (2010) Bilbao effects and narrative defects. Cahiers de Recherche du Programme Villes & Territoires.
  32. Ponzini D (2012) Competing cities and spectacularizing urban landscapes. In: Anheier HK, Isar YR, Hoelscher M (eds) Cities, cultural policy and governance. Sage, London, pp 99–110Google Scholar
  33. Ponzini D, Manfredini F (2017) New methods for studying transnational architecture and urbanism: a primer. Territorio 80:97–110.Google Scholar
  34. Ponzini D, Nastasi M (2016) Starchitecture: scenes, actors, and spectacles in contemporary cities. Monacelli Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Ponzini D, Manfredini F, Akhavan M (2018) Transnational architecture and urbanism: outlining and testing a new method for studying the global mobilities of projects and designers. Paper submitted for publication 2019- under review at time of print.Google Scholar
  36. Rybczynski W (2002) The Bilbao effect. Atl Mon 290(2):138–142Google Scholar
  37. Shin N (2015) Lyon’s new Musée Des Confluences.
  38. Sklair L (2005) The transnational capitalist class and contemporary architecture in globalizing cities. Int J Urban Regional Res 29(3):485–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sklair L (2017) The icon project: architecture, cities, and capitalist globalization. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith A, von Krogh Strand I (2011) Oslo’s new Opera House: cultural flagship, regeneration tool or destination icon? Eur Urban Regional Studies 18(1):93–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Statsbygg (2005) New Opera House. Oslo, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  42. Urry J (2000) Sociology beyond societies: mobilities for the twenty-first century. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Urry J (2007) Mobilities. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Architecture and Urban StudiesPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations