1.1 Outlining an International Literature Review
Notwithstanding their historic origins (since at least the second half of the nineteenth century), the recent increasing interest in mega-events has resulted from the proliferation of post-Fordism and globalization (Chalkley and Essex 1999). Despite the frequent negative impacts and conflicts created by mega-eventsâi.e., cultural, economic, environmental, political, social, and spatialâtheir rising appeal, in particular from the late 1980s up until the global crisis in 2008, has referred to their capability to speed up processes of urban development and change (sometimes already ongoing) in host cities. This acceleration is made possible by their ability to concentrateâboth temporally and spatiallyâphysical and intangible resources, otherwise dispersed.
According to exceptional concentrations of economic and human resources, mega-events are able to simultaneously produce different kinds of negative and positive outcomes, as well as generate different kinds of legaciesânot only material, but also immaterial. âWhile Worldâs Fairs historically were celebrations of science and technology, more recently they have also been driven by local desires to make major investments in infrastructure and to revitalize urban neighborhoods â (Wilson and Huntoon 2001, p. 2). A similar shift has also involved sporting mega-events, such as the World Cup and the Olympic Games, which are comparable to Expos in terms of negative impacts, positive effects, and legacies.
The Olympics , often considered the most important mega-events , form the greatest part of global event studies and bibliographical references. Therefore, this manuscript intentionally focuses on Worldâs Fairs. Nevertheless, this chapter aims at reflecting in general terms about the concept of the legacies of mega-events, which are frequently dealt with, but, at the same time, relate to different issues and meanings:
- from the material legacies of event facilities and venues , transport and technological systems or green and blue networks to the immaterial legacies of human capital, businesses and urban brands;
- from direct legacies, strictly related to the short-term event celebration, to indirect legacies more extensively related to the medium- and long-term capability to exploit and reuse the event facilities, venues and infrastructures ;
- from local legacies, concerning the immediate surroundings of the event sites , to wider legacies , involving the entire hosting cities and, in some cases, the hosting countries.
However, this chapter does not aim to add new reflections to a long-standing international debate about mega-event legacies, which have already been shown through a vast and multi-disciplinary field of studies (Getz 2008a, 2012) and bibliographical references. On the contrary, it aims primarily at providing some introductive evidence for the rest of the book by focusing on the legacy component of mega-events as it connects the extraordinariness of Expos, as well as of Olympics and World Cups , with the ordinariness of urban dynamics .
Broadly speaking, the international literature mainly focuses on impacts and benefits traditionally concerning urban cores or whole countries, rather than contemporary urban phenomena now defined as post-metropolitan spaces (Soja 2000; Balducci et al. 2017). This book, in contrast, aims at dealing with contemporary urban issues resulting from the relationships between mega-events and cities from the point of view of the regional scale of contemporary urban issues.
Worldâs Fairs and other mega-events are used to be considered extraordinary episodes within ordinary urban change processes, whose iconic attractiveness has particularly grown since the 1980s. However, in the context of the world crisis , the supposed mega-event singularity no longer seems able to easily activate extraordinary dedicated funds, either public or privateâas highlighted by the Milan Expo 2015, the main case study of this book. Even when able to provide exceptional economic resourcesâas for instance in some developing countries, such as in the BRICS and Oil-rich countriesâthe contrasts between the self-referential logics of world events and the needs of local communities have become more and more evident and conflictual (MĂŒller 2014a, b; Makarychev and Yatsyk 2016; Vainer 2016). Furthermore, the supposed mega-event singularity demands a high level of complex management to interlink mega-event strategies, often without success, with local development schemes (Hiller 2012). That is, it demands a huge quantity of human skills that can frame long-term and wide-ranging spatial effects. Indeed, mega-events can foster urban and territorial effects all along their âlife cycle,â from the starting of their bid to their planning and construction; from their staging to the capitalization of their benefits.
Event typologies are quite articulated according to their different specializations (i.e., business, cultural, political, religious, or sporting), target (i.e., global, world regional, national, regional, or local), and temporal intervals (i.e., occasional, periodic, or permanent) (Roche 2000; Guala 2015). All large events, and not only the mega-events, are potentially capable of producing different kinds of negative impacts, positive effects, and legacies, both temporary and permanent, which can differ from one event to another due to both the event typologies and the specificities of their related projects and contexts. On the one hand, these differences can be seen in the development of small- or large-scale interventions, as well as through the implementation of new services or the improvement of existing ones. On the other hand, they can be identified in the multi-scalar economic, environmental, political, social, and spatial qualities of their hosting cities and countries, as well as of their surrounding neighborhoods,1 which can also express an articulated system of different interests, locally or globally driven, and often conflictual.
While the total number of variables affecting event outcomes is vast, there are not necessarily direct nor automatic connections between an eventâs success and its long-term benefits, which mostly depend on the post-event organization and management . Therefore, by assuming the perspective of the city, and not just that of the event, the post-event planning and governing âoften underestimated and postponed until after the event celebration âis crucial. Toward this end, some international experiences can be considered as paradigmatic cases, such as the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona and the 2012 Olympic Games in London. In the case of Barcelona, we refer to the strong relationship between the event venues and infrastructures promoted by the 1986 Olympic Plan and the strategies and projects for the city and its urban region, first promoted by the 1976 Metropolitan Plan (Marshall 2004; MonclĂșs 2007; Brunet 2009). In the case of London, we refer to the establishment of the Olympic Park legacy company, and the elaboration of post-event plans to reuse the area, before the event celebratio...