GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM BILBAO

AN EVALUATION OF THE CLADDING MATERIALS

By Katie Cacace, Marita Nikaki and Anna Stefanidou

 “A synthesis of the architectural aspirations of this century” – Hans Hollein

“The miracle in Bilbao” – New York Times Magazine

“One project imagining the future” -Felipe Manglano, Fernando San Sebastian

INTRODUCTION – SITE LOCATION

In the early 1990’s, the city of Bilbao, Spain, was faced with the challenge of advancing from an
industrial community into a high-service industry based community. Many other urban renewal
projects were underway, such as a new airport control tower and suspension bridge by Calatrava.
The Basque Administration was now planning to convert the Alhondiga, a former wine-storage
warehouse, into a cultural facility. They thought that an art museum would be perfect, and they
proposed partnering with the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation for the new museum.

Thomas Krens, the director of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, reviewed the site of the
Alhondiga and had many concerns. He had recently been thinking about the space requirements
for museums and the fact that art exhibits are becoming larger. “Even relatively recent
museums, such as the Guggenheim and the Museum of Modern Art, New York, have to cope
with many problems, foremost of which is space: their art collections are fare more extensive
than they are able to show.1” A grid of columns no more than 3 meters apart and a ceiling height
of 3.5 meters restricted the interior space of the Alhondiga. Krens thought that this could lead to
spatial difficulties, but he decided to get a second opinion. Since Krens had worked with Frank
O. Gehry on a previous feasibility study for a museum renovation in Massachusetts, he asked
him to review this site.

After visiting the proposed site on May 20, 1991, Gehry agreed that the Alhondiga would be a
very difficult renovation into an art museum. He recommended another site, “by the
river…because they [the Basques] had been telling me all day that the river was being

1
Bruggen, Coosje Van. “Frank O. Gehry: Guggenheim Museum Bilbao.” New York, NY: Guggenheim Museum
Publications. 1997. pp. 18
redeveloped.2” Krens had also visited the river area while jogging, and had found that it was,
what he calls, “the geocultural triangle of Bilbao3” because it was in the center of the Bellas
Artes Museum, the university, and the opera house. The Basques investigated the area and found
that a site on the Nervion River, roughly between the Puente de la Salve and the Puente de
Deusto would be the site of the Bilbao Guggenheim Museum.

BUILDING DESIGN

According to Juan Ignacio Vidarte, General Director of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, “we
wanted this building to be of the same quality as its contents, with an importance equal to that of
the artworks it would eventually house.4” Not only was the building design difficult given this
criterion but also the site location further challenged the design of the new museum. While
designing the building, the designers also needed to take into account the small scale and
character of the buildings to the south along the Alameda de Mazarredo Avenue. Running
through the East side of the site was a large bridge, the Puente de la Salve, which needed to be
incorporated into the design. The riverfront faced the North edge of the property, requiring
careful design.

The architectural selection process involved an American, a European, and an Asian architect.
The selection committee made no presentation requirements for the architects to use in
conveying their overall vision of the new building. They only stated that they were interested in
rough estimates of scale and general types of exhibition spaces rather than technicalities and
specific details. After the review process during July 20 & 21, 1991, the selection committee
chose Frank O. Gehry as the architect based upon his sketches and approximate models.

2
Bruggen, Coosje Van. “Frank O. Gehry: Guggenheim Museum Bilbao.” New York, NY: Guggenheim Museum
Publications. 1997. pp. 21
3
Bruggen, Coosje Van. “Frank O. Gehry: Guggenheim Museum Bilbao.” New York, NY: Guggenheim Museum
Publications. 1997. pp. 22
4
Bruggen, Coosje Van. “Frank O. Gehry: Guggenheim Museum Bilbao.” New York, NY: Guggenheim Museum
Publications. 1997. pp. 12
Over the next six years, Gehry’s “unique hand-to-eye coordination, a process of transforming
intact a sketch into a model into a building, that comprises a building5” brought about the final
design of the Guggenheim Museum. Even though the building is very innovative, it is still
incorporated in the city and the location that it is in with a “sculptural roofscape responsive to the
city’s undulating topography.6” While the south elevation facing the 19th and early 20th century
apartments and offices is rectilinear, the north elevation facing the river has a “more loose
‘nautical’ imagery sails or curved boat forms going in flux with the river.7”

The unique and fluid forms required and exceptional team of engineers, architects and
contractors who, as Juan Ignacio Vidarte stated, “brought to fruition a scheme that only sixty
months ago seemed utterly impossible.8” The exterior cladding of the building that provided its
signature shape was very difficult to design and construct.

CLADDING MATERIALS

5
Bruggen, Coosje Van. “Frank O. Gehry: Guggenheim Museum Bilbao.” New York, NY: Guggenheim Museum
Publications. 1997. pp. 15
6
Giovannini, Joseph. “Breaking the Institutional Envelope.” Progressive Architecture. 1992. October. pp. 117
7
Bruggen, Coosje Van. “Frank O. Gehry: Guggenheim Museum Bilbao.” New York, NY: Guggenheim Museum
Publications. 1997.
8
Bruggen, Coosje Van. “Frank O. Gehry: Guggenheim Museum Bilbao.” New York, NY: Guggenheim Museum
Publications. 1997. pp. 12
In order to “fulfill the aesthetic requirements of Frank Gehry,9” three different elements were
used to form the exterior surfaces of the museum. These three cladding materials are titanium
(25.221 m2), stone (34.343 m2) and glass (6.136 m2). The location of each material is not only
defined by the appearance of the exterior, but is also related to the different functions of the
interior space: “Titanium cladding for the galleries, limestone for the public facilities (restaurant,
library, etc.), and blue render for the administration.10”

Each material was unique and provided its own set of construction difficulties. However, since
the exterior of the building has a very unusual shape, the greatest number of difficulties arose
when intersections formed by two or three different materials meeting in peculiar points.
According to Fernando Perez, “we exchanged more than 6000 faxes only for the exterior
surfaces in order to provide answers to our problems until the smallest details.11”

Titanium
For the majority of the people working at IDOM, the most interesting and original material for
the exterior was the titanium. “The choice of titanium,” according to Fernando, “was because of
its value of color, texture and its capability of reflecting the light. At the same time titanium was
valued because of its extraordinary mechanical capabilities and resistance to corrosion.12” Since
the location of the museum is right next to the Puente de la Salve Bridge, the low reflection of
light was very important not to endanger the motorists with sun glare. But also one of the factors
that made them decide to use titanium
was that at that time titanium was very
cheap if it was bought from Russia.
After all, titanium also proved to be
much lighter than stainless steel that had
originally been specified. In thin sheets
of only 0.38 mm, titanium reveals plastic
values that allow it to adapt easily and

9
“Historia de un Sueno, Ceirres Exteriores.” pp. 16
10
“Bursting on the Scene, Frank Gehry’s Bilbao Guggenheim.” Architecture Today. October, 1997. pp. 22
11
“Historia de un Sueno, Ceirres Exteriores.” pp. 17
12
“Historia de un Sueno, Ceirres Exteriores.” pp. 17
flexibly to the complex surfaces of this radical design. The thin sheets of titanium also give the
building a rippled effect that even flutters in the wind. This is a highly effective feature for the
titanium cladding that is placed primarily on the free-flowing areas of the building. This fluidity
was maintained by aligning the different coursings as they wrap around the corners. This caused
the panel heights to vary from one course to another, although they remained constant and
parallel within a course. So the width of each panel remained relatively constant.

Supporting the titanium in a free-floating form was difficult to achieve. A secondary structure
was designed on top of the primary structure to allow the building to be structurally sound while
depicting a very fluid appearance. A thin layer of 2 mm galvanized sheet was then installed on
these secondary studs, insulated from the back and waterproofed on the outer edge. The titanium
panels are then installed over this waterproof
membrane. The lower edge of each titanium panel is
curved around and behind the hangers overlapped with
another panel (see A6-1.50/2), requiring installation
from the bottom to the top. Curving the titanium around
the hangers alleviates water run-off and dust collection
problems as well as securing the panels in strong winds.
The hangers and the wrapping of the panels allow
adjustments to be made during installation as well as Detail A6-1.50/2
thermal expansion and contraction movement (see detail A6-1.50/2).

Regardless of these aims at reducing the difficulties in constructing this complex building,
almost every piece of titanium needed to be a different shape. Although many of the pieces were
cut using a computer model, some pieces needed to be cut on site to ensure a proper fit.
Construction was eased a bit by the use of an extraordinary waterproofing membrane. This
membrane is a self-healing material that does not allow water to pass through even when
punctured by screws. With a thickness of only 1.13mm, it has the ability to “grow” around holes
and re-seal around them. This innovative material, titanium, removed the extra work required
for workers to patch around the thousands of steel staples supporting the titanium.
Careful attention was paid to the details of the titanium cladding control the water flow and run-
off from the building. Weep holes were created at the base of the titanium panel curve to
provide and outlet for any water that may condensate or seep behind the panels from the roof
runoff (see detail A6-1.50/12). A standing metal seam was designed to manage water at the

Detail A6-1.50/12 Detail A6-1.50/8 Detail A6-1.50/6

seams (see detail A6-1.50/8). At the metal soffit a drip point was created (see detail A6-1.50/6)
to control the water run-off the building and prevent possible penetration.

Stone

Contrasting the free-flowing usage of the titanium, the stone cladding is located on areas of the
building that are seemingly more stationary. This heavy material selection seemed appropriate
for these static locations, although stone does create some aesthetic issues due to the slight
variances that can occur in natural materials. Gehry wanted “to avoid, at any cost, the
checkerboard effect13” that even slightly different tones of stone can create. Quarries from the
town of Grenada sent 120 stone samples from which one was selected that had all the
requirements: “amber color, high resistance to erosion, possibility of being able to cut pieces of
reduced thickness, and high mechanical resistance.14” This survey was also able to produce
stone of almost the exact same color tones; thereby eliminating the checkerboard effect, provided
the quarries had enough material to match.

13
“Historia de un Sueno, Ceirres Exteriores.” pp. 20
14
“Historia de un Sueno, Ceirres Exteriores.” pp. 19
Although stone is covering many solid
areas of the building, the towers are the
most notable and provided the most
difficulties in the construction of the stone
cladding. This is ironic because the tower
existence was often debated since it lacked
function, and therefore only limited funds
were left for its design and construction.
However, due to its final location next to
the bridge, the stone installation became of
great importance. In order to cut each
piece of stone properly, the contractor used
computer files to generate the exact dimensions, complex curves, and angles for each piece.
They also used another machine to ensure that each piece was in the proper position.

The stone material is generally perceived to be very

strong and stationary both in its chosen locations on the
building and in its material qualities. However, careful
examination of the stone cladding reveal that it is
merely a cladding hanging on a substructure and not
thick pieces of stone. This disguise is revealed at the
Detail A6-6.6/2
corner
intersections, where two coursings meet but do not
align. The vertical joints of the stone align, enhancing
the verticality of the building, but again revealing that
this material is not supporting the building structure.
The stone cladding is also revealed by a 20 mm gap at
the base of the stone cladding, which allows water to
escape from behind the stone.
Construction layers; expansion and contraction.
 Glass
According to Fernando Perez Fraile, responsible of the
exterior surfaces, “Unexpectedly, the curtainwall of glass
appeared to have the most important and tough
difficulties in fabrication, structure, and installation.15”
This may be due to the unique and unusual shapes of
curtainwall that were formed as it “filled the cracks
between the concentrically laid-out galleries and the
continuation of the entry ramps running into the
atrium.16” These glass openings at the intersection of
various museum functions provide the visitor with an
Detail A6-2.20/9
orientation to the city. Triangular pieces of glass were
used to articulate the necessary curves and unique overall forms. Three layers of glass, one on
the exterior and two on the interior, (see detail 2.20/9, blue) were used to insulate the building,
both acoustically and thermally. Installing an extruded thermal break at the outside of the
curtainwall eliminated a cold bridge from the interior curtainwall to the exterior (see detail
2.20/9, red).

Due to the difficulties of joining the glass curtainwall with the

other cladding materials, a gap was incorporated to eliminate
the joining of the two different systems. This gap included a
stainless steel closure plate with thermal insulation. It not only
aesthetically separated the two materials, but it also provided
space to account for the different thermal expansion and
contraction properties of the different materials. An adjustable
slot in the steel bracket also allowed for flexibility in
Detail A6-2.20/5
installation as well as thermal expansion (see detail A6-2.20/5).

15
“Historia de un Sueno, Ceirres Exteriores.” pp. 17
16
Bruggen, Coosje Van. “Frank O. Gehry: Guggenheim Musuem Bilbao.” New York, NY: Guggenheim Museum
Publications. 1997. pp.119
EVALUATION OF THE CLADDING MATERIALS

After studying the way the three basic cladding materials are structured and looking at the
building we made some general comments on them.
The system they used to support the cladding was very simple, in order to be able to adjust to all
the unusual shapes of all the cladding pieces. By using a simple hanging structure for the
titanium and the stone, the construction team was able to focus their efforts on realizing the
complicated shape of Gehry’s design. This is a case where we can clearly see that the realization
of the particular design was possible thanks to technology and computers. Otherwise, they would
probably have to cut and assembly the pieces on site and that would be extremely time
consuming and expensive. The result of the cladding construction is very satisfying, as the
materials were harmonically placed and gave a very clear visual effect. Overall the shapes and
the free geometry, even though they created high demands on the structure, the final image of the
building gives the impression of a “light” building.
BIBLIOGRAPHY (and photographs from):

-1992-1997 Historia de un sueno- Guggenheim Bilbao Museoa, IDOM.

- Frank O. Gehry Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, 1997 The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation,

NY.