ARCT 2 0 6 3 : Theories of
THE
FUTURE
Architectural Design, Histories, Theories & Future’s.
MUSEUM
Hel si nk i Gu g g e nhe i m The influence on future museums Featuring - The Future Details Conference G reen w i c h S c h o ol of A rchitectu re
By Paul Gorzelak
Unit 19 Student Number: 000788987
What is the the f u t u re o f t h e m u s e um ? Cri tically di sc uss i n re la tio n to th eo rie s o f m u sology, cu ratio n, a rc hi t e c t u r a l a n d /o r u r b a n /city d e s ig n .
Figure 01 - Finalist GH-1128435973
Abstract In discussing the design competition for the Guggenheim Museum in Helsinki, you cannot ignore the Next Helsinki competition set up in direct competition to the Guggenheim Foundation. Both competitions look to investigate the future of Architecture
through the proposals for a future museum, which interacts within its surroundings. These competitions alongside the views of current international museum curators and directors help to establish a basis for what the future museum may be. Through the analysis of these competition briefs, entrants and finalists a speculation for
the future of the museum can be proposed. Investigating how place making, interaction within society and the evolving use of technology has been and will continue to influence theories of museology, curation, architectural and/ or urban/city design. It seems inevitable that an increase in architectural design routed in
society and the ever expanse of digital technologies will leave the museum as potentially a hub of the community. A place allowing insight into the past whilst offering interactive, educational experiences, creating discussions and places for interaction which could increase societies understanding.
When looking at the future of the museum, you can immediately speculate on possible scenarios for a prospective architecture. This speculation and imagination will often be routed within histories, theories and futures of museology, curation and architectural design. To establish the possible, the actual has to first be explored, this will be developed by analysing the recent (2014) competition for a new Guggenheim museum in Helsinki, which has attracted record amounts of entries, totalling 1,715 submissions from 77 countries Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition, 2014 [online]
The competition attracted anti Guggenheim campaigns, with particular interest to the ‘Next Helsinki’ Campaign set up by Michael Sorkin. This essay will look to discuss the Guggenheim museum entries, finalists, and their relation to the developing ideas of museology, curation and architectural design within the twenty first century. These ideas range from community led, or community structured museums through to the digitalisation of the museum. The current trend for increased educational and interaction exhibits will be discussed in relation to the views of current museum directors and curators from some of the world’s leading museums. This grounding in the actual museum will lead to a conclusion which can speculate on the possible futures of museology. Museum and curation theory, for the future will look to continue the development already felt throughout the 21st Century. The theory that the museum is like a “shrine” MARSTINE, J.(2006). p9, housing the precious objects of past histories which need to be preserved and in some form worshiped. Has quickly been evolving and developing to maintain the relevance of museums as entities for the 21st century. Museums need to be flexible spaces which adapt to the changing times
they find themselves within. This museum development however is led from a variety of directions; one, the aim to connect further with the society the museum finds itself within, a reason being to increase visitors and create capital, two, the need to preserve the spiritual nature of the museum as an important place home to important and significant objects. Museum and curation theory has such been developing to increase the possible funding streams available to keep museums as part of the built environment. Many directors feel that without community lead and increased involvement through educational facilities the museum would cease to exist. As we look to the future and due to increased digital advancement which we find ourselves dealing with, in our everyday lives, the world needs to be adaptable to remain relevant, this is almost an impossible challenge. The Guggenheim museum competition for Helsinki, has created a discussion not only within the architecture profession but throughout the international press. The debate is centered around whether Helsinki should spend “hundreds of millions
of municipal euros” The Next Helsinki, 2014[online] on an iconic architectural showpiece, similar to that in Bilbao, or whether the future of the museum (and in turn the future of Architecture) should be more about society, people, place and use. The Guggenheim foundation proposed the competition for Helsinki which drew record numbers of entries, from all across the architectural field, from the star architects through to recent graduate students. This therefore provides the perfect sample to analyse in what direction museums will go in the immediate future. According to the design brief, the proposal will be “an innovative, multidisciplinary museum of art and design.”
Figure 02 - Finalist GH-04380895
The Guggenheim Foundations brief follows the trend of the 21st century for creating a museum for the visitor rather than a “shrine” MARSTINE, J. (2006). p9 or museum for the intellectual, “All areas of the museum should be conceived in terms of how they support social interaction and the experience of art.” Guggenheim
Helsinki Design Competition, 2014 [online]
Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition, 2014 [online]
Figure 04 - View of Makasiini Terminal, Helsinki
Figure 03 - Guggenheim Bilbao
This shows that speculating on the future the museum as a tourist attraction bringing in people and capital to the museum and neighbouring community will continue, increasing in importance within the museums mission statement. The brief ends with a side not, looking towards the future of not only the museum,
Conference Review The Future Detail with notable absentee Patrick Schumacher [Zaha Hadid Architects].
Figure 01 - Conference Poster
The Future Details Conference led by Mark Garcia, focused on the recently publish Architectural Design magazine “Future Details”. The one day conference which was aimed at students and academics alike was held on the 19th September 2014, in the newly opened Greenwich School of Architecture Stockwell Street Building. The Architectural design magazine is “consistently at the forefront of cultural thought and design since the 1960s, it has time and again proved provocative and inspirational - inspiring theoretical, creative and technological advances.”
The Conference focused on educating those new to Greenwich School of Architecture, introducing them to the level of thinking which occurs throughout the department. In particular the focus on the architectural detail as a form of analysing design. That detail does not solely relate to construction detailing and the joining of materials, it manifests itself in how a designer interacts with architecture as a whole. Mark Garcia opens the conference by first explaining the detail, with its “conceptual root” coming from the “French words ‘detail’ and detailler’. These consist of the parts de(connoting separation) an tailler (‘to cut’), from the Latin ‘talea’ (twig, cutting’), expressing the minor things considered as a whole.” Garcia, M. (2014). p16.
a belief that “’Assemblage’ as a technique and theory has come to characterise the new and partly alien-species 21stcentury detail.” Garcia, M. (2014). p21. Assemblage is defined as “a collection or gathering of things or people.” Oxford Dictionary, N.D [online]
The Assemblage Mark is referring to is one of new technologies and techniques, which in turn create a new form of detailing, not just the idea of “invisible details” Garcia, M. (2014). p21. but the ideas of details as “super details, hyper-real, info-details, infradetails of architecture.” Garcia, M. (2014). p21. These details are so minuet and prescriptive that the detail itself becomes the architecture, as the idea or driving force behind the project. He explains that through the ever increasing patenting of details by the architecture profession, the detail as an architectural force is no longer ignored or demurred, “God is in the detail”, the detail and precious nature of the detail is the architecture.
Figure 04 - Megagram
Architectural Design Magazine, N.D, History [online]
This edition continues this tradition of creating in-depth discussions about future topics, the future detail. As well as Mark Garcia, guest editor and lead for this Architectural Design magazine, the conference features; Ben Van Berkel [UN Studio], Neil Spiller, Nic Clear, Simon Herron and Jamie Liversedge,
detailing, that for the year ahead, when it comes to designing a project to step away from the whole and analyse the detail. Focus in on a small part of the project, an exciting technology, a specific part of the machine, once this has been analysed then it makes the whole a lot clearer. This is not to suggest that I believe the detail only focuses in on the small and sometimes insignificant aspect of the whole, but merely aids the aesthetic and advancement of the whole. If time is spent analysing and designing the smallest of details, and this is considered for the project as a whole, then the project would be a success due to this dissection and interrogation of the detail.
Figure 02 - Digital grotesque
He goes on to talk about the detail for details sake, he explains the detail as its progression through architectural histories and theories, before speculating on the architectural future of the detail. The future Mark speculates about comes from
Figure 03 - Digital grotesque
I believe Mark is opening the audiences eyes to the detail as a topic, the detail as a way of analysing and describing buildings. It focuses my attention on the individual, often artistic ideas surrounding
The Key note speaker Ben van Berkel [UN Studio], offered a glimpse of the architectural detail within the practicing profession of architecture. Ben opens by explaining his understanding of the architectural detail, “that it is ‘the major aspect of architecture ... you only need two or three larger details to explain the whole concept of the building”. Garcia, M. (2014). p56. This limitation on the detail comes out of the practising profession and is a contrast to
the previous presentations that the smallest details within the building provide the success of a building. Ben continues by saying “if you have 20 ambitions and you would like to express them all in one building, then probably you can’t afford it or you don’t have the time, or it would never work in a single building.” Garcia, M. (2014). p56. These limitations placed on the detail within the architectural profession mean the success or failure of a project relies on a few important details, for the Mercedes Benz museum that becomes “the twist” Garcia, M. (2014). p60.
It is this expense added to the detail which has therefore changed the importance of the detail for UN Studio, more importance is placed on the omission of detail, as he explained whilst showing slides of the Mercedes Benz museum. It is this omission of detail within the void of the building, which is in fact the detail. The void itself articulates the
circulation and leads a route around the proposal, the way light bounces through the void is the detail.
Figure 06 - Mercedes Benz Museum
To conclude the Future Details Conference on 19th September 2014, not only expanded a topic which is often overlooked, in the sense that the “devil is not in the detail” but showed how the detail unlocks the potential for design. The benefits from attending the conference offered me the catalyst to begin interrogating my design, it offered me the opportunity to expand my thinking away from the general often vague
description of a building, and into a more prescriptive exploration of the detail. This is not as I once thought just the detail of joints or how the building fits together, it is the detail as a whole. The detail of the “architectural strength in control, thoroughness, exactness, resolution, plausibility, precision, depth, exhaustiveness, focus, craft, subtlety, prosperity, abundance, concentration, specificity, meticulousness, accuracy, rigour, scrupulousness, care, diligence, richness, intensity, completeness, comprehensiveness, fullness and extensiveness.” Garcia, M. (2014). p17.
By Paul Gorzelak Unit 19 Student Number: 000788987
Figure 05 - Mercedes Benz Museum
Bibliography Architectural Design Magazine, N.D, History [online] Available at; http:// www.architectural-design-magazine. com/view/0/history.html [Accessed 28 November 2014] Garcia, M. (2014). Future Details of Architecture. Hoboken: Wiley. Oxford Dictionary, N.D [online] Available at; http://www. oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ english/assemblage
Images Figure 1 - Advertising Poster for the Future Details Conference, 2014 [online] Available at http://blogs. gre.ac.uk/architecture/2014/09/05/ conference-future-detailsarchitecture/ [Accessed 28 November 2014] Figure 2 - Mike Aling and Mark Garcia, Megagram, 2014. Garcia, M. (2014). Future Details of Architecture. Hoboken: Wiley. p16 Figures 3 & 4 - Michael Hansmeyer and Benjamin Dillenburger, Digital grotesque, [online] Available at http://www.digital-grotesque.com/ [Accessed 28 November 2014] Figurers 5& 6 - Mercedes Benz Museum, UN Studio, 2006, [online] Available at http://www.unstudio. com/projects/mercedes-benz-museum [Accessed 28 November 2014]
but of all the built environment, “the latest digital technology should be incorporated into the design”. Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition, 2014 [online]
Digital technologies and there importance to future museum design, curation and theories is a vast expansive subject, which this essay will touch on later. After attracting record entries the Guggenheim competition was shortlisted down to six finalists. This was an extensive process which began with a two week individual viewing by all panellists and culminated in a four day discussion chaired by “Mark Wigley, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, Columbia University.”
Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition, 2014 [online]. “The
Jurors’ goal was to identify the proposals that showed the most promise in developing into outstanding designs during the second phase of the competition.” Guggenheim
Helsinki Design Competition, 2014 [online]
Figure 05 - Mark Wigley Jury Chair
During the selection process from 1715 down to 6, the future of architecture and how the panel saw the future of the museum was taken into consideration. A scheme was disregarded if “they felt did not meet the brief, or in meeting the brief,” demonstrated a number of concerns, this include; Little of no sensitivity to the site and its context, No reference to practical building regulations and laws, Little or no consideration to the site masterplan, poor organisation of internal and external spaces particularly in reference to how the public would interact
with the building, little or no consideration to landscape, material, space, circulation and structural design, and a similar design to other Guggenheim museums or other major museums. Guggenheim
Helsinki Design Competition, 2014 [online] The Chair in
particular “encouraged the jury to question the concept behind each submission and consider what it contributed to the understanding of ‘the museum’ today” Guggenheim
Helsinki Design Competition, 2014 [online] This shows that not only
were the panel behind the new Guggenheim museum, thinking about the best proposition for the city itself, but also how a museum would interact in today’s society and how it would lead itself to the future. The museum is proposed to act as the cornerstone of society within Helsinki, not a secluded building for the select few, but an open, interactive space to be used by the masses.
The six chosen finalists were picked due to their forward thinking proposals, based on the future of the museum and future of architectural design. The Jury panel made their decisions through analysis of a number of design considerations. Entry GH-121371443 was praised for its use of the building aesthetic “as a sustainable energy device”. Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition, 2014 [online]. Merit was given to designs GH-1128435973 and GH-
Figure 07 - Finalist GH-1128435973
5059206475 for “responding well to the cityscape and the site, using materials from the existing buildings and creating close relationships with its Guggenheim surroundings.”
Helsinki Design Competition, 2014 [online]
This is particularly key for the future of museums, which are becoming more society led. The proposals for all future museums need to incorporate site specific details into their proposals, creating a relationship between the community, site, museum and exhibits. The proposals GH5631681770 and GH-76091181 were praised for their use of internal space, creating areas for public use. These public areas link back to the perceived future of the museum, creating
open collaborative collections which can be experienced by all. If the proposal creates an open, dynamic space to house exhibits. Then the curator can enhance the public experience by creating exhibitions which work with the space they are housed in. Troy Conrad Therrien, the newly appointed Guggenheim curator of Architecture and Digital Initiatives, recently stated that although he does not “know the museum’s internal conversation.” Architizer, 2014, [online] the curation of the exhibits will be intrinsically linked to the architecture of the proposal, “staying relevant... is about innovating not just in content, but in form.” Architizer, 2014, [online] One thing is sure, the exhibitions programmed will be aimed at the future progression, as the Guggenheim Foundation wish for the design proposals to be prime examples for future design. Just as Pontus Hulten former director of the Centre Georges Pompidou believes “A museum director’s first task is to create a public - not just to do great shows but to create an audience that trusts the institution.” OBRIST,
H. U., & BOVIER, L. (2008). p37 The connection with
Figure 06 - Finalist GH-5059206475
creating a public and linking in with the historic nature of Helsinki is deeply rooted in the Guggenheim Foundations design brief and as such will inevitably be a key component in future museum design. This
new museum design based on the interaction with the city and public, is opposed to classical museum design, “The traditional museum is no longer in tune with our concerns, it has ossified our culture, deadened many of our cultural objects, imbued with the spirit of the people, to be lost” MARSTINE, J. (2006). p16. That was the view of Alpha Konare, former president of the international Council of Museums in 1983, but it is more relevant than ever in discussing the vast cultural heritage of Helsinki and Finland. Which needs to be enhanced and used as the basis for any proposed museum design. Through the panel’s selection of finalists,
Figure 09 - Finalist GH-5631681770
this surely has been taken into consideration. All entries focus on the city, the people, the natural vernacular for a pallet of materials, but also having the heritage of Helsinki at their heart. Unlike Guggenheims of the past, Bilbao in particular, there is no global shout for a showpiece architecture by a Star Architect, but more a look to the future of design. Proposals which aren’t focused on being a sculptural advert for their architect, but relate specifically to the site, users and needs of the proposal. Whilst the Guggenheim museum competition reached a wider audience than any
architectural competition before it, it was not without its critics. Michael Sorkin, founder of ‘The Next Helsinki’, has set up a contrasting competition, where the museum is not the answer to Helsinki’s economic problems, but a whole urban strategy is required. Michael Sorkin along with the other founders, felt a more holistic approach was needed rather than the designs of a big name architect, possibly creating a unique building akin to the Guggenheim in Bilbao, however a building which lacks a connection and residing identity of the place and people it finds itself within. This idea has some enduring connection with the progression of museum theory itself. Although Sorkin may not be setting up a competition for a museum per se, his intentions are linked to increased community involvement and the designing of a proposal which functions and benefits the neighbourhood. Tony Butler, Director of the Museum of East Anglian Life describes the future of the museum as being “Rallying
Figure 08 - Finalist GH-76091181
points for the community, leading local campaigns, connecting up civic society groups, using their collections in a more activist way to illuminate local concerns.”
Museum-iD Magazine Issue 10, N.D,[online] This is what Sorkin
aims to achieve through ‘The Next Helsinki’ competition.
Figure 10 - Michael Sorkin The Next Helsinki
‘The Next Helsinki’ Competition lays out a brief which calls for alternative ideas “open to all - to rise to the challenge of imagining a richer future for the whole city?” The Next Helsinki, 2014[online] This ambitious statement, doesn’t only directly oppose the development of the Guggenheim but also criticises
all recent development within the city itself. Michael Sorkin and ‘The Next Helsinki’ panel are imagining an improved future, one where the city and society are at the heart, and architecture has to respond to the needs of the city. This looks to therefore not only design a museum for the future, but readdress architecture for the future, designing proposals which “take as its starting points the existing structures and needs of the city itself?” The Next Helsinki, 2014[online]. They see any proposed outcome as being able to “bring forward fresh ideas, new concepts as well as realistic proposals as food for thought and as inputs into the local and global public debate about the use of the South Harbour Site, and about the future development of cities in general” The Next Helsinki, 2014[online]
In principle ‘The Next Helsinki’ ambition is a thought provoking start to a discussion within the architect community about the needs of future architectures to be adaptable places which enhance the community they are within. However it appears their plans are so ambitious that their wishes appear unlikely to be achieved through one competition, or even through a few competitions. ‘The
Next Helsinki’ competition has seeming it succeeded in changing the panel of judges for the Guggenheim proposals thought process. As unlike previous architecture competitions they have not bowed down to a star architect to design them a showpiece. But has approached six firms who have shown a real connection with the place, materials and users of Helsinki, attempting to design a thought provoking building which could enhance the Next Helsinki’s chances of affecting Architecture/ Urban planning on a larger scale. As they state on the website, “This is not a traditional ‘architectural design competition’ which would simply have a building and nothing else as its end result”. The Next Helsinki, 2014[online]
As the Helsinki competition and anti-competition show the future of the museum is a changing subject. Museumid.com recently interviewed a series of museum directors to find their views on what the future had in store for the museum. Throughout the responses a number of themes were evident, themes ranging from the increased use of museums as visitor attractions, with curation focused around interaction, education and
Figure 11 - South Harbor seen further away from the North
visitor participation. Seeing Museums as integral to the community and aiding and influencing the lives of those who visit. Camilo Sanches from the Museum of Independence, Colombia states “I would love to see museums become important for communities, not only because they guard their heritage, but rather because they lead social change and become places that help to effectively solve problems.” Museum-iD Magazine Issue 10, N.D,[online] Museums are therefore seen as the catalysts which could change the society around them, rather than traditional elitist centres for learning, which was often the case throughout the 19th Century. The Next Helsinki competition backs this up, using the Guggenheim’s competition and reactions to it, to attempt to influence architectural change,
future designs which enhance society. Carlos Alejandro López Ramírez, Director Salsa Museum, Cali, Colombia goes as far as to say “if museums here do not become cultural centers where you can integrate education, recreation and preservations, in 15 years there are not going to be any museums.” Museum-iD Magazine Issue 10, N.D,[online] This future of the museum may be heavily based around funding. Directors and Curators of museums, may wish to preserve the historic nature of the sacred spaces housing important artefacts for scholars to study, however this is not possible and never will be again, museums have had to adapt to survive. Johannes Cladders former director of the Abteiberg Museum designed by Hans Hollein in Monchengladbach, however believes that the peripheral
Figure 12 - Guggenheim Abu Dhabi
Manager, Canadian Museum for Human Rights believes “We are already living in the era of the virtual museum” MuseumiD Magazine Issue 10, N.D,[online]
This has also be explored further through Lianne McTavish’s Essay “Visiting the virtual museum: Art and Experience online.” MARSTINE, J. (2006). p226
Figure 13 - Abteiberg Museum by Hans Hollein, Monchengladbach
functions should not overtake the meaning of a museum. “ Re emphasis that there are main functions, that a museum is a museum.” OBRIST, H. U., & BOVIER, L. (2008). p63. JeanYves Gallardo, Director of Communications, The National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design, Norway believes museums will become“ a meeting place of major social significance. In brief: a forum for the arts... an arena for interaction between artwork, visitor, museum and society.”
Museum-iD Magazine Issue 10, N.D,[online] In creating the brief
and choosing the six finalists the Guggenheim Foundation have based a proposal in the here and now, around what many see to be the future of the museum. The creation of a public space which interacts with the city, society and people who visit and interact with the museum. Museums of the future not only have to deal with the threat of closure, lack of funding and needs to adapt to survive, but also the increased digital future. Technology has already
influenced the progression of museums and museum theory, through the advancements in display, communication and interaction. Gina Koutsika, Head of National Programmes and Projects, Imperial War Museums discusses, “technologies such as cloud computing will change the way we work with each other and with our communities. Social networking will probably become more integrated in the way we operate, form partnerships and position our institutions.” Museum-iD Magazine Issue 10, N.D,[online] I am of the understanding this technological shift has already occurred, museum either are currently or already have adapted to the smart world we find ourselves in. The Helsinki competition adds a note to the advancement of digital technology, but poses the questions rather than finding the solution of how a physical museum can survive in an ever virtual world. Christine Conciatori, Content Project
In discussing the museum of the future, the Guggenheim Foundations competition for a new museum in the heart of the cultural city of Helsinki, sets out a precedent for future architectural competitions. The competition was not only ground breaking by the large amount of entrants, but it sets a precedent for selecting finalists not by name and reputation alone, but by how they respond to the interaction between proposal and city. The Next Helsinki competition was set up to start this conversation, under the assumption the Guggenheim Foundation would do as they have done in Bilbao and Abu Dhabi, and hire a star architect to produce a show piece building with no relation to the history, people or place. They have been proved wrong by the Guggenheim panel, and the museum of the future therefore connects with those who will inhabit and ultimately fund exhibitions. Museums will no longer be elitist institutions serving only as a place to preserve and worship history and knowledge. “It is no longer productive to think of the museum in isolation, either as a kind of monolithic relic
from the nineteenth century” DEWDNEY, A., DIBOSA, D., & WALSH, V. (2013). p 220
However, be a place where people congregate, communicate and interact, ultimately a place which creates discussion, just as the two contrasting Helsinki competitions have created an international debate. Trends within Museology, curation and architectural design surrounding the museum, as such have been changed due to this landmark competition, with the focus being more on city, integration within society and becoming a building in which the community is welcomed rather ignored. Johannes Cladders believed the emphasis should always be on the society “Thinking about the function of the museum...Artist who create a work, but a society that turns it into a work of Art.” OBRIST, H. U., & BOVIER, L. (2008). p57
Speculating on the museum of the future is as previously stated a hard task to accomplish, due to the endless possibilities of the future. However, an increase in architectural design routed in society and the ever expanse of digital technologies will leave the museum as potentially a hub of the community. “whether it takes up the challenge of putting the audience at the centre of its networks” DEWDNEY, A.,
DIBOSA, D., & WALSH, V. (2013). p 220 is part of the speculation.
A place allowing insight into the past whilst offering interactive, educational experiences, creating discussions and places for interactions which could increase societies understanding.
Figure 14 - Guggenheim Helsinki Finalists
T he Fut u re Mu s e u m G ug g en h e im Hels in k i Bibliography Books; ANDERSON, G. (2004). Reinventing the museum: historical and contemporary perspectives on the paradigm shift. Walnut Creek, Calif, AltaMira Press. DEWDNEY, A., DIBOSA, D., & WALSH, V. (2013). Post-critical museology: theory and practice in the art museum. Oxon, Routledge. GIEBELHAUSEN, M. (2003). The architecture of the museum: symbolic structures, urban contexts. Manchester, Manchester University Press. MARSTINE, J. (2006). New museum theory and practice an introduction. Malden, MA, Blackwell. MILES, R. S., & ZAVALA, L. (1994). Towards the museum of the future: new European perspectives. London, Routledge. OBRIST, H. U., & BOVIER, L. (2008). A brief history of curating. Zurich, JRP / Ringier.
Websites; Dezeen, 2014, Controversial Helsinki Guggenheim competition attracts record number of entrants [online]Available at;http://www.dezeen.com/2014/09/17/helsinki-guggenheim-museum-competition-record-number-of-entrants/ [Accessed 12 December 2014] Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition, 2014, [online] Available at; http://designguggenheimhelsinki.org/ [Accessed 29 December 2014] Museum-iD Magazine Issue 10, N.D, Future of Museums [online] Available at; http://www.museum-id.com/idea-detail.asp?id=283 [Accessed 14 December 2014] The Next Helsinki, 2014, [online] Available at; http://www.nexthelsinki.org/ [Accessed 02 January 2015] Architizer, 2014,�The Bilbao Effect is Real� [online] Available at; http://architizer.com/blog/the-bilbao-effect-is-real-new-guggenheim-architecture-curators-dream-scenario-forhelsinki/
Images; Front Cover - Guggenheim Finalists, 2014 [online] Available at http:// d e s i g n g u g g e n h e i m h e l s i n k i . o rg / [Accessed on 07 January 2015] Figure 01 - Finalist GH-1128435973, 2014 [online] Available at http:// d e s i g n g u g g e n h e i m h e l s i n k i . o rg / finalists/ GH-1128435973 [Accessed on 07 January 2015] Figure 02 - Finalist GH-04380895, 2014 [online] Available at http:// d e s i g n g u g g e n h e i m h e l s i n k i . o rg / finalists/ GH-04380895 [Accessed on 07 January 2015] Figure 03 - Guggenheim Bilbao, [online] Available at http://www. guggenheim-bilbao.es/en/thebuilding/ [Accessed on 07 January 2015] Figure 04 - View of Makasiini Terminal, Helsinki, 2014 [online] Available at http://d3idhfv96zr63z. cloudfront.net/helsinki/Competition. Conditions.LR.pdf [Accessed on 07 January 2015]
Figure 06 - Finalist GH-5059206475, 2014 [online] Available at http:// d e s i g n g u g g e n h e i m h e l s i n k i . o rg / finalists/GH-5059206475 [Accessed on 07 January 2015]
Figure 11 - South Harbor seen further away from the North, [online] Available at http://www.nexthelsinki. org/#downloads [Accessed on 07 January 2015]
Figure 07 - Finalist GH-1128435973, 2014 [online] Available at http:// d e s i g n g u g g e n h e i m h e l s i n k i . o rg / finalists/GH-1128435973 [Accessed on 07 January 2015]
Figure 12 - Guggenheim Abu Dhabi, [online] Available at hhttp:// w w w. g u g g e n h e i m . o rg / a b u - d h a b i [Accessed on 07 January 2015]
Figure 08 - Finalist GH-76091181, 2014 [online] Available at http:// d e s i g n g u g g e n h e i m h e l s i n k i . o rg / finalists/GH-76091181 [Accessed on 07 January 2015] Figure 09 - Finalist GH-5631681770, 2014 [online] Available at http:// d e s i g n g u g g e n h e i m h e l s i n k i . o rg / finalists/GH-5631681770 [Accessed on 07 January 2015] Figure 10 - Michael Sorkin The Next Helsinki, [online] Available at http://www.nexthelsinki. org/#prettyPhoto/0/ [Accessed on 07 January 2015]
Figure 13 - Abteiberg Museum by Hans Hollein, Monchengladbach, [online] Available at http://www. h o l l e i n . c o m / e n g / A rc h i t e c t u re / Nations/Germany/StaedtischesMuseum-Abteiberg [Accessed on 07 January 2015] Figure 14 - Guggenheim Finalists, 2014 [online] Available at http:// d e s i g n g u g g e n h e i m h e l s i n k i . o rg / [Accessed on 07 January 2015] Rear Image - Finalist GH-76091181, 2014 [online] Available at http:// d e s i g n g u g g e n h e i m h e l s i n k i . o rg / finalists/GH-76091181 [Accessed on 07 January 2015]
Figure 05 - Mark Wigley Jury Chair, 2014, [online] Available at http:// designguggenheimhelsinki.org/en/ jury/profile/mark-wigley [Accessed on 07 January 2015]
By Paul Gorzelak
Unit 19 Student Number: 000788987