Revitalization, Transformation, and the 'Bilbao Effect': Testing the Local Area Impact of Iconic Architectural Developments in North America, 2000 to 2009

Author: Matt Patterson
Year: 2020
Source type: article
Raw file: raw/articles/patterson-2020-bilbao-effect-revitalization-transformation.md

Summary

A quantitative, large-N test of the "Bilbao effect" using a dataset of 142 iconic architectural developments (IADs) completed in Canada and the United States between 2000 and 2009, across ~32,000 neighbourhoods (zip codes / forward sortation areas). Using fixed-effects modelling with longitudinal census data (2000–2010), Patterson tests whether IADs cause neighbourhood-level economic revitalization (population growth and rising rent) and economic transformation to a culture-based economy (growth in arts establishments and cultural workers). The analysis finds consistent evidence in favour of the Bilbao effect — IAD neighbourhoods experienced more intensification and more cultural growth — but with two important nuances: growth manifests as either population or rent (not both), and while arts establishments rise everywhere, cultural workers are pushed out precisely where the effect is strongest (Lower and Midtown Manhattan), a case of Lees's "super-gentrification." The paper thereby complicates the largely critical/case-study literature by providing broad causal evidence for the effect while showing it operates differently in emerging vs. established neighbourhoods.

Key Claims

• The Bilbao effect is empirically real at the neighbourhood scale: IAD neighbourhoods grew by ~1,566 people on average (more than double the ~710 for non-IAD), experienced higher rent increases, and added more arts establishments (mean +4.1 vs. +0.4) and (outside New York) more cultural workers. Fixed-effects modelling addresses selection bias: neighbourhoods are compared to their own prior (2000) state rather than to other neighbourhoods.
• Starchitect/IAD sampling is based on intention, not achieved iconicity: because "iconicity is an outcome rather than a cause," Patterson operationalizes IADs by the architectural firm (drawing on Sklair and Ponzini & Manfredini) rather than the built result, to capture projects intended to be iconic (including those that failed). "Starchitect" is defined by a four-dimensional Bourdieusian rubric: consecration, aesthetic orientation, global reach, and charisma.
• Economic growth is bifurcated: population OR rent, not both (H1 supported with nuance): across IAD neighbourhoods, population and rent change are negatively correlated (r = −0.175). In established areas (Lincoln Square, Manhattan; Central Loop, Chicago) the effect shows up as higher rents; in areas with upzoning capacity (Dallas, Cincinnati downtowns) it shows up as population growth with stable/declining rents.
• Rent increases are driven by commercial IADs: condominiums and office buildings (Model C/D in Table 5: +$211/+$183) versus non-commercial projects (libraries, museums: +$31/+$18, n.s.). Commercial developers only hire starchitects in the hottest markets (over half of commercial IADs were in New York).
• Cultural growth is real but uneven (H2 supported): arts establishments increase robustly around both cultural and non-cultural IADs. However, cultural workers decline in Manhattan (−288/−305 in NYC models) while rising strongly outside New York (+40/+32); Brooklyn and Harlem gained the cultural workers Manhattan lost.
• A tale of two Bilbao effects: the Dallas Arts District (zip 75201) exemplifies the conventional "revitalization" narrative — three new icons + an apartment boom that nearly tripled population to 9,409, younger and more diverse residents, ~8% cultural workers — a "not clear-cut" case of gentrification (median income fell). Lincoln Square, Manhattan (10023) exemplifies what Lees (2003) calls "super-gentrification": three IADs serving to renew an already elite Lincoln Center, shrinking and ageing the population, raising rents, and driving out cultural workers even as arts establishments thrive for tourists/high-income residents.
• IADs cluster where the economy is already dominant: 118 neighbourhoods held IADs; New York (22) and LA (12) dominated; many IADs are built in already-global, culture-rich cities, contrasting with the Bilbao narrative of the declining post-industrial city.

Connections

Concepts: Iconic Architecture · Star Architecture · Gentrification · Neoliberal Metropolis · Spectacle · Consumerism
Authors: Matt Patterson · Leslie Sklair · Charles Jencks · Maria Kaika · Inge Goudsmit
Debates: Spectacle vs. Function · The Everyday vs. Iconic Architecture
Related source notes: Reviewing the 'Bilbao effect' (Lorente) · The Bilbao Effect: Is 'Starchitecture' All It's Cracked Up to Be? (Michael) · The Icon Project (Sklair) · Who Wins and Who Loses... (Goudsmit) · The Effects of Gentrification (Brummet & Reed)

Direct Quotes

"Bilbao effect narratives... have typically focused their attention squarely on the figure of the architect... the power of the architect lies in what Bourdieu (1996) calls the 'charismatic ideology of creation'." (p. 3)

"iconicity is an outcome rather than a cause of development. It [is] fundamentally tied up with an IAD's secondary effects, since buildings that positively impact their surroundings are more likely to be perceived as iconic." (p. 6)

"Neighbourhoods with IADs grew, on average, by 1,566 people, which is more than double the average population growth of those without (710 people)." (p. 9)

"IADs tend only to cause rent increases within neighbourhoods that have stable or decreasing populations." (p. 12)

"the economic benefits of IADs are channeled into higher rents and property values which may push out cultural workers even as arts establishments thrive by catering to tourists or high-income residents." (p. 15)

"we can see how IADs can fit into what Lees (2003) calls 'super-gentrification'... the transformation of already gentrified, prosperous and solidly upper-middle-class neighbourhoods into much more exclusive and expensive enclaves." (p. 16)

Open Questions

• Does the quantitative confirmation of the Bilbao effect at the neighbourhood scale undercut or sharpen the critical literature's scepticism (Ponzini, Kaika, Goudsmit)? Is economic effect the right metric, or does it miss the cultural/symbolic harms the case studies foreground?
• Is the "super-gentrification" outcome (Manhattan) an exception or the likely long-run fate of even "successful" Bilbao effects?
• Would the large-N findings hold outside North America, where culture-led regeneration and urban governance differ (Europe)?