Oiio Reveals Proposal for Guggenheim Expansion

Courtesy of Oiio Architecture Office

With many museums worldwide seeking to extend to accommodate larger collections, Athens-based Oiio Architecture Office has asked: “What if we decided we needed a little more of Guggenheim?”

Their solution is to stretch ’s original building skywards, by continuing its iconic ramp, creating an additional 13 floors. 

More on the design after the break…

Courtesy of Oiio Architecture Office

The building would continue to grow in circumference as it rose, while the atrium would gradually taper inwards to a point, so the building would culminate in a perfectly circular floor at the top where Wright’s iconic glass dome would be rehoused.

Courtesy of Oiio Architecture Office

But, before you take to the streets to protest this new twist to an old favorite, the Architects themselves are the first to state that such an addition is purely fantasy, naming their proposal “Guggenheim Extension Story”.

Oiio has said, “ has become so iconic, so emblematic and hermetic in our minds that it can no longer be touched by architects!”

Courtesy of Oiio Architecture Office

For the meantime, any art aficionado who craves ‘a little more Guggenheim’ will have to settle for Frank Gehry’s building in Bilbao, or his planned center in Abu Dhabi.

Cite: Rackard, Nicky. "Oiio Reveals Proposal for Guggenheim Expansion" 31 Jan 2013. ArchDaily. Accessed 31 Aug 2014. <http://www.archdaily.com/?p=326434>

46 comments

  1. Thumb up Thumb down +41

    a horrible monstrosity with no originality.

    • Thumb up Thumb down +7

      In the original Wright’s version, there is a volume balance between the part that grows taller and all the rest. These addition destroys this balance, and I wonder what’s the point of the huge domus in the top if there won’t be the same free area for daylighting up there anymore…

  2. Thumb up Thumb down +1

    Im not so sure about altering cornerstones of mid-century american architecture. But even for some one who is, this has to be one toke over the line. They are talking about turning the gug into a high rise.

  3. Thumb up Thumb down +8

    FLW just rolled over in his grave, DON’T DO THIS…. please.

  4. Thumb up Thumb down -2

    I already so it on FB but i thought it was a Joke but it isnt. Are they also gone make it of silicone so it’s very light to make it and you cane make it enormous and fake like a lot thinks in the UsA.

    • Thumb up Thumb down +1

      “But, before you take to the streets to protest this new twist to an old favorite, the Architects themselves are the first to state that such an addition is purely >FANTASY<, naming their proposal “Guggenheim Extension Story”."

  5. Thumb up Thumb down +7

    This cannot be serious… I thought it was a joke when I first saw the image!

  6. Thumb up Thumb down -14

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

  7. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    I don’t think they are doing good to it. It was not originally designed like that and is going to be an addition of both dead and live load to the building. He also had his reasons of leaving it like that.

  8. Thumb up Thumb down +22

    “But, before you take to the streets to protest this new twist to an old favorite, the Architects themselves are the first to state that such an addition is purely fantasy, naming their proposal “Guggenheim Extension Story””

    • Thumb up Thumb down +27

      Does anybody read the article before commenting?

      • Thumb up Thumb down +3

        Nope. I’ve seen this “proposal” on Dezeen few days ago, and the comments there are spammed with the same ignorant outrage like here. Apparently, reading six short explanatory paragraphs is not needed to have a strong opinion…

  9. Thumb up Thumb down +2

    At the face of the entrance canopy, there should be in big, bold, bright letters “PETE’S COFFEE”.

  10. Thumb up Thumb down +1

    Good move, noboy will ever accept this, that museum is heritage, but it is interesting how the studio made their way to make them selfs publicity, jajajaa nice

  11. Thumb up Thumb down +1

    Images are powerful. People see the images of this proposal first and are initially outraged because they assume its going to be built, or its being considered. But taking the time to actually read what is said reveals its nothing but some companies fantasy, a sketch for fun, a hypothetical. So ok, lets judge it on those grounds.

    They did the right thing maintaining the formal language of the original, though I would say they’ve overdone it on the scale side by a factor of at least two. However, they stuck to the existing geometries a little too rigidly within the interior. Bringing the atrium to a point and basically closing it off is a bad idea. It’ll ruin the light and airy quality of the space. This ties into their scale issue. Were it half the height, the atrium wouldn’t come to a point. Even then, I wouldnt follow the interior atrium geometry as a straight line, but rather gently start curving it back so by the last floors its simply straight up and not making the atrium smaller.

  12. Thumb up Thumb down +1

    I hope it’s because architects and future architects don’t read, and only look at pictures, BUT it is unbelievable how many people here don’t get it… it’s a STATEMENT!!! Pure FANTASY! Look at it for what it is, not the construction!! Having said that, I’m reminded of Superstudio (1960s architects).

    • Thumb up Thumb down 0

      This has nothing to do with Superstudio, and you’re not Adolfo Natalini (or it’s pure coincidence). Superstudio had a lot to say.

      • Thumb up Thumb down 0

        Of course I’m not Adolfo Natalini… And Olio Architecture Office is not Superstudio. Now let’s discuss how this fails as a statement instead of harping on the fantasy building.

Share your thoughts