In 2004 Madrid decided to build its own Guggenheim. Now it has a monster that not even Richard Gere wants as a Buddhist center

Many cities have pursued the idea that a single building could change everything, attract tourism and redefine their identity almost overnight. The obsession has a very specific origin: the impact it had the Guggenheim Museum in the economy and image of Bilbao, converted into a global case study. In 1997, its inauguration marked a before and after and fueled an urban fever that led to replicate that model in places where the context did not always accompany. A Guggenheim in the suburbs. At the beginning of the 2000s, in the midst of a real estate boom and with the Bilbao effect still resonating, Alcorcón decided to aspire to his own cultural icona complex that was to place the city on the international art map. The idea was ambitious to the point of excess: a macrocenter cwith nine interconnected buildings which included an auditorium, conservatory, conference center and even a permanent circus, all conceived as a kind of Madrid Guggenheim. The problem here was not a lack of imagination, of course, but the scale of a project designed for an economic reality that was about to disappear. A half giant. The works They started in 2007 with budgets that were already high, but soon they began to chain modifications, cost overruns and difficult decisions to justify, such as the demolition of a practically new library or the incorporation of such peculiar facilities as, attention, stables for animals. When the 2008 crisis hit squarely, the project was stopped with around 70% executed and more than 100 million of euros invested, leaving behind a huge structure, partially completed and without a clear function. What should have been a cultural emblem became an empty mass, one too big to abandon completely and too expensive to finish. The hidden cost of an impossible project. Beyond the initial investment, CREAA had profound economic consequences for the municipality. The reason? It had been financed through a public company that ended up accumulating a gigantic debt. The estimates spoke of tens of millions additional costs to complete it and several million annually just to keep it running, which turned it into a structural problem rather than an opportunity. In fact, even its design played against: a complex so integrated that turning on a single zone meant activating practically the entire system, skyrocketing costs and making any reasonable partial use unfeasible. Nobody wants the “Guggenheim” of Alcorcón. Over the years, the building became a kind of failed promise that was passed from hand to hand without finding real lace. Projects of all types and colors were considered, from an NBA campus to a sports university, passing through a large Buddhist center promoted by Richard Gerebut none came to fruition and most of those interested declined the opportunity. Even more recent initiatives, such as the creation of a great audiovisual hubhave ended up running aground when faced with the real costs of adapting facilities designed for a completely different context. The idea that that complex could become an international benchmark has been diluted with each failed attempt. From cultural icon to symbol of excess. Over time, CREAA has gone from being an emblematic project to becoming another example of that appellant excessive planning in Spain, a construction that aspired to change the identity of a city, but ended up conditioning its public narrative. The image of that large iron and concrete structure, partially finished and unused for years, has weighed more than any original intention, fueling the debate about the limits of public spending on large-scale cultural projects. A partial ending to an unfinished story. However, in recent years, some spaces have begun to find usefulnesssuch as the installation of a state victim care center or the partial reopening of certain areas, but the whole is still far from fulfilling the vision with which it was conceived. More than a decade later, the complex begins to reactivate in a fragmented way, adapting to much more pragmatic needs than those from which it was born. The result, as in other phantom “moles” of the Peninsula, is a persistent reminder of a time when it was thought that it was enough to build big to transform a city, without foreseeing that the real challenge would really come later. Image | Juan Lupión, Zarateman In Xataka | The biggest disaster in sports history dates back to the Roman Empire: the tragedy of the Fidenae “VIP boxes” In Xataka | In 1995, South Korea suffered one of the great architectural disasters of the century. The culprit: the air conditioning

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry of 2025 is taken by Susumu Kitagawa, Richard Robson and Omar Yaghi

The Nobel Prize for Chemistry of 2025 It has been granted to Susumu Kitagawa, Richard Robson and Omar Yaghi for “the development of metalorganic structures.” A great advance that is mostly thought to be able to extract water from the air in arid environments such as desert or extract water pollutants or capture carbon dioxide. All this thanks to the great cavities through which the molecules can flow. The material of the 21st century. The new materials that have created the winners so far have been used on a small scale. But the truth is that it has important applications such as in the electronic industry, where it can be used to contain some of the toxic gases that are necessary to produce semiconductors. Although you can also see its arms application to be able to be used as chemical weapons. But the most striking can undoubtedly be the capacity of capturing carbon dioxide that occurs in industrial and power plants to reduce its carbon footprint and not contribute to the greenhouse effect. The pools. This year the truth is that a lot of doubts about who could take this Nobel was again again. The roads pointed out that the prize would be taken by the catalysis of a single atom, which is a technique that allows the most efficient and sustainable reactions to be made. And this is something that goes very much of what was expected for this year 2025: being as sustainable as possible in the field of science and mobility. This means that other advances such as the development of batteries that have less impacts, work the environment or also materials with energy applications have been in the pool for receiving one of the greatest awards in this field. Chemistry views magazine He also did different surveys To know what the scientific community thinks about the award. In this case, most pointed out that the field of biochemistry would be the award -winning this year and there was a rivalry with each other, it would be European or American. Although where almost all coincided (89%) is that it would be a man the graceful. The Nobel Prize for Chemistry. This award has been distributed on 116 occasions in which it has fallen to 194 people. As curiosities, it should be noted that the youngest award to date has been Frédéric Joliot with 35 years. But at the other extremes we have John B. Goodenaugh, with 97 years, who was awarded in 2019. The problem we have in this case is that there are very few women who have received this award, being Marie Curie the first to do so in 1911 (which also won the Physics in 1903). It should also be noted that with this recognition the stage of awards for disciplines in Health Sciences closes. Now there is only the turn for literature tomorrow and on Friday the Peace Prize. In addition to these, on Monday the Prize for Economic Sciences will be announced again, which was not established by Alfred Nobel. In Xataka | It costs to see a sponge and think that life on earth began thanks to them. But we are getting clearer every time

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.