2000 Hiller, H. Toward an urban sociology of mega events.

Prévia do material em texto

TOWARD AN URBAN
SOCIOLOCY OF MECA.EVENTS
Harry H. Hiller
INTRODUCTION
The density and diversity of urban populations has long been understood to pro-
vlde a context for lhe exPression of various forms of collective behavlor tn the
public spaces of cities (Mumford l96l; Lofland 1998; Castells 1983; Jukes 1990;
Jacobs 1961) From street festivals, parades, and pilgrimages to ots, marches of
resrstance, and demonstrations, such expressive and instrumental activities have
been among the mosl observable aspects of urban social life Juxtaposed next to
more spontaneous behavior supported by large urban agglomeralions were large
planned gatherings of people for religious, sPorting, or Politjcal purposes in cathe-
drals, coliseums, or state buildings. SPecial events provided occasions for celebra-
tion, commemoralion, or declaration as emotions intensified, generating excite-
mem that allered the daily rouhnes of urban dwellers Even special marker days
couLd draw crowds to specified locations in a congested city in a manner that
altered the nature of urban living Cities and their Public spaces have always pro-
vided an environmenr for a wtde range of special events that changed the daily
rhyrhm of city life (Whyte 1980).
Res€arch in Urban Sociology, Volum€ 5, pages 181-205.
Copyright @ ?000 by JAIPress Inc.
All rrghtr of reproduction in any form reserv€d.
ISBN:0-7623-0540-1
182 HARRY H HJLLER
In the contemporary era, cities contlnue to be centers for specral events that
draw people like magners from wtthin the city as wel) as beyond. Some speclal
events are primarily Iocal, whereas others are deliberately planned to atfact non_
resrdents, such as festivals, major sporting events, or conferences (Getz lgg7).
Some evenrs are a regulanzed part of city litb (e.g., taking place annually) whiJe
others are ro a city. Given the process of glo_balizarion ts have become so signrficant, as a
result of perceprions of their meaning and
rmPacti th competitions with 6ther cities in a
"bid" 
. The larger the
ber of edia exposure, t
and th event, the more
event
THE CONCEPT OF MECA-EVENT IN URBAN PERSPECTIVE
When a special event is a short-term, one-trme, high proiile event hosted oy a crty,
it rs referred to as a mega-event. The high profije nature of the event is related not
only to some fonn of international or large scale partlcipation bur specifically to
the fact that in some significtnt sense, the mass media carries the ovent to the
world. A special event habitually hosted by a city on a fixed time schedule (such
as festivals or exhibitions) may attempt to draw inrernational visitors, but lt has
become parr of the rhythm and identi ry of rhar particular ciry (Getz 1997 , p. g) Inconfasl (which presum_
abiy heicrficary il::;,"J;r;
body ou 
r esraotrshes the
parameters and ground rules for the event. Tbus, in an important way, ultrmate
controi of the mega-event does not resr wlth the host city, which rs increasingly
expected to provide financial guarantees and comply with other rules and ttme_
lines set by the sponsorrng body. The awarding of a mega_event to a city is ofren
contjngent on the city meeting these exrernai obligatrons rn relation to a fixed
date, which crcates a sense of urgency that is not always conducive to urban dem_
ocratic processes and establlshed Iong-term planning goals
requlrements which host cltles must tbllow and create competitiveness berween
bidding clties as a levering device to ensure that the event secures the most favor_
abLe terms ftom the host city and from diiTerent levels of government. There are
other sporting events of an internatjonal nature, such as rhe World Cup rn soccer
181
Toward an LJrban Socioloy ol Mega-Events 183
or the World Track and Field Championships, but in most cases they use preexrsr_
rng facilitres or they do not command the same media focus. World conferences
ol global organizations can aiso be considered mega_evenrs to some host cities(Hiller 1995), but again, they do not have the same global impacr as cxposroons
or Olvmprcs.
envrronmelt. Often, mega-ovents provide sjgnature structures for the urban land_
scape (e.9., the C.ystal Palace in London, Olympic Stadium in Montreal, or Space
Needle in Seattle) and prompt the mobilization ofpublic_sector and pnvare-secror
capl|al lDvestment which would not have occurred in the same fashion under nor_
mal crcu
exception
highly pol
sector fun
From the pers e-scale special event canbe considered a
errecr-rhar is, i i".:il"lilH"ilj;ii:l
agenda ln some n or alterahon of urban
space which becomes its urban legacy. So, for example, the Commonweatm
Games do not approach the impact of the Olymprcs in terms of media expo-
sure. but because Kuala Lumpur used the l99g Games to build new srrucLures
and lo make some infrastructural improvemen!s, there is an urban rmpacr
which can be assessed.2 In addihon to transformations of the built envrron_
ment, rt ls possible that there are also temporary or permanent urban etiects of
a more psycho-social narure, such as th€ generation of urban pride or ue ptace
marketrng of a city for economic purposos, Dur tnose lmpacts are not dis
cussed rn this paper
A specrai event becomes a mega-event for a clly when lt rnlervenes in the nor,
184 HARRY H HILLER
mega-event is thought to generate, the more th€ event becomes a justification for
larger expenditures and greater change (includrng that of a cosmetic nature).1
Ironrcally, the greater the media exposure, the greater the likelihood that the event
and rts medra coverage aLso can be sold to corporate sponsors (Crompton 1994;
Cunningham and Taylor I995).4 This commercialization of the event can lead to
some revenue-sharing in which the host city may be a beneficiary. The best case
in point is the contemporary Olympics, in which the sale of media rights by the
Internatronal Oiympic Committee yields U 5.$600 million or more to the local
organizing committee.s Not all of these funds are used to transform lhe host city,
but rl is clear that such a financial motherlode has elevated interest jn hosting the
Olympics for many more cities. It was no wonder that after the financial debacle
of the Montreal Olympics, no city wanted to host the next summer games, but
srnce media (particularly televisron) rights have become so Iucrative, bidding for
the 2004 Games, which was decided in 1997, involved a record I I cities. Thus,
lhe greater the actual global impact of the event, the more likely that the mega-
events will mobilize urban resources in a manner that will lead to some kind of
urban transformation.6
MEGA.EVENTS AND EXISTINC
MODELS OF URBAN ANALYSIS
The analysis of mega-evenrs has been largely mrssrng from the urban lireraturo,
partiaily because, historically, mega-events were limited to a few domrnant citjes
(e.g., London, Pans, New York, Chicago) that hosted these unique events, whrch
were better understood as reflections of the broader processes of lndustnalism and
capitalism than of intemal factors to a specific city (Benedict 1983). In the con-
temporary era, a whole new range of cities has discovered mega events and used
them as mechanisms to advance therr interests in a world shrunk by the process of
globalization (Macintosh and Hawes 1992). Seldom bave mega-events been
understood as phenomenon in their own host urban context, as reflectrng the
urban dynamrcs within the host city. Instead, the focus has been on their broader
global meanings and significance This paper presents the argument that mega-
events must be interpreted not only as reflectlng the broad processes of urbanrsm
but also as being both actors and products rn specific urban environments, and as
playing a role in initiating intemal change as well as participatinB in the dynamics
of change within the city
Each of the dominant paradigms in urban socioiogy has lhe potential to be rel-
evanl rn such an analysrs The ecoiogy pafadigmrepresented lhe first attempt to
relate socral processes ro spaiial factors and was most prominent before the iate
1960s (Logan, Whaiey, and Crowder 1997) Mega-events of the order whlch are
discussed here always represent incursions inro urban space and often set rn
motlon Drocesses such as invasron and succession. To the extent that clties can be
Toward an Urban Soctology of Mega-Events 185
defLned as systems, the infrasrrucrural requirements of mega,avents produce
effects on the urban regioo that poten ally alter or rearrange existrng patterns.
The fact that urban ecoiogrsts largely ignored mega-events as an object of anaiysrs
was probabiy due more to a perceptron of their speclal crse status than to an
assessment that the evenrs did not fit thelr ana)yUcai perspective. It is also possi_
ble that thes€ events could have been considered merely one ofmany mechanlsms
producing urban adaptation and change.
The political economy paradign of the new urban sociology (Gottdernef and
Feagin 1988) is relevant at two levels. First, it links the mega-event to pollcres
of the state (whether national or municrpal) and understands th€ mega-event ln
relation to capital accumulation and the need for investments as well as the inler_
nationalrzahon of capital. Second, it points to the roLe played by urban elites,
who use the mega-event to promote private,sector interests tn the internal rear-
rangement of urban space and in the reprioritization of the urban agenda The
unevenness of benefits and costs of the mega-event in relation to different urban
social groups aiters the supposed "naturalness" of internal change to a focus on
power felllons rnvolvrng dispracemenr or opposllon.
The "growth machine" paradigm builds upon political economy and is partrcu-
lariy usetul rn linkrng mega events with pro-growth coalitions working at the
local level (Logan, Whaley, and Crowder 1997). Logan and Molotch ( 198?) were
instrumentai in developing a socioiogy of urban space through th€ir emphasis on
the concept of land as a commodity and heir distinction between use vaiue and
exchange value. The assumption was not only that a coherent coalition of elites
had a vision for the city but also that this visloo coincided wrth their own inreresrs
and power roles. Regrme theory (Ston€ 1993; Kantor, Savitch, and Haddock
1997) added a diil'erent dimension by focusing on Iocal decision making as polir-
rcal action and on the coalitlons created, which induced cooperation berween the
public and pnvate sectors and emphasized the role of agency in urban outcomes.
The new urban polirical economy was abie to befter understand the dynamics of
socral processes and urban space because it more ciearly identified the role of
human action (Walton 1993, p. 314). Since mega,events are always rhe result of
initlatives taken by urban elites or elite ftagments as pro-growth coalitions, urban
political economy has great potential in their analysis Furthermore, since mega-
ev€nt slte and infrastructural requirements are usually substantial, a rcstructuring
of urban space usually occurs, at Least to some degree, and lhis supports the need
for an evaluation of the socral consequences. Criiiques of mega-events usually
focus on the role of public funds and indebtedness in relation to select circuits of
profit making, while hiding negative outcomes with publrc delusions of grandeur
(Crark 1989). The fact that mega,events are rncreasrngly being sought by crrres rn
suppon of pro-growth rdeologres amid debates about uncontrolled costs ano aec-
larations of civic pnde and success suggests that mega-events must be unclerstood
as an increasrngly important urban phenomenon ofour time In short, while megr-
events are unique one,tlme urban events. their rncreasing prevaience as an urban
HARRY H. HILLER
strategy and therr reflectjon of urban dynamrcs require that they be ciearly under_
srood rnd rooted in rhe lirerrture on crues.
MEGA-EVENTS, CITIES, AND
TOURISM/ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The emphasis adopted here on the urban significance of the mega-event has been
largely missing from the literature on mega-events as well. Rrtchie (198 , p. 2),
for example, understands mega-events (formerly hallmark events; in terms of the
purpose of enhancing the tourism appeal of the host city and its region. Gerz
(1997, p 6) conceives of the mega-event in terms of rts abrlity to yield extraordr_
narilv high levels of tourism, prestige, media coverage, and economic impacts for
the host community The srgnificance of the mega-even t is almost al ways tho ught
of primarily in tems of its economic impact on a city or state (Lynch and Jensen
1984). Urban residents are inundated with impressive fiscal projectrons and mul-
tipliers pertaining to tourist spending, number of bed nights for hotels, employ_
ment creation, and GDP effects as a mechanism to justiry broad public support
(Crompton and McKay 1994). Whether, of course, the economic benefits of
mega-events can be accurately caiculated or whether they are dispersed signifj_
cantly b€yond the tourism industry to other urban residents may be a debateable
point (Uysal and Girelson 1994). The main poinr ro be made here is thar rhis
approach focuses on the economlc impact of event preparation and the event
itselt-, and uses tourjsm (from preevent to postevent) as the central impact of the
mega-event.
In many ways, the focus on tourism impacts is not mrsplaced. Hosting a large
number of visitors in a contracted period of time means that a visitor infrastruc_
ture must be in place. The lodging, restaurant, and entertainment industries musr
be expanded ro accomodate the demand, but it rs clear that such expenditures are
unlikely to take piace unless there is long-term viability It ls for this reason that
Barcelona and Sydney, for example, used cruise shrps at central city docks as tem-
porary accomodatrons to meet the svent demand for the Olymprcs. In other words,
some expansion of visitor facilitres may take place that has an urban impact but
thrs does not necessarilv happen Refurbrshmenc and upgrading of existing facrli-
ties is a more likely end resulr. On the other hand, cities that project an expansron
of their tounsm potential (e.g., Cape Town, South Africa)7 expect a more signrfi-
cant enlargement of their tounst facilities. Thus, cities with underdeveloped tour,
ist industries are more likely to expedence urban effec$ on the toulsm side
However, the major question noted already is whether the one-time event wili
have an apprecrable effect on urban touflsm into the future, and beyond the event
itself, that would warrant an expansion of the tou sm lnfrasrructure (Mules and
McDonald i994: Kang ano Perdue I9947.8
Towarcj an Urban Sociology of Mega Evens 187
It is possible, however, that the sructures especially built for the mega-event
can become tourist attractions rn themsel\res into the futuro and thereby support
urban tourism For exampie, the gigantic Olympic Speed Skating Oval built for
the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics is one of only two rndoor, covered speed ska!
ing ovals in the world and, because of irs sheer srze, has become a tourist stop with
accompanying plaques and commemorative tributes. Tourists seldom come to a
former mega event cily just to see its structures, but while they are there, the
structures may become one of the pantheon of things Lo do while in the city. I will
retum to this theme of the roie of mega-event structural Iegacies in relation to the
commodification of urban Ietsure later.
MECA-EVENTS AND PTACE MARKETING
It is Dot unLil recently (1990s) that there has developed a growing awareness that
mega-events must be understood within their urban contexts. Analysts working
within the tourism tradition indeed have made scattered obseryations about the
urban impact ofmega-events One of the mol e dominant themes has been the role
of mega-events as image makers for a city to either promoteinward invesrment or
promote tourism as a form of in|er-urban competition or urban entrepreneuriahsm
(Hall 1997). Ascendanl cities, as opposed to older established and dominant citres
(such as Loncion or New York), are now particularly inferested in the role which
a mega-event can play in enhancing their growlh or consolidating their preemi-
nence regionally ifnot globally (Hrller I997; Bennett t99l;Wamsley and Heine
1996).'The mega-event represents an imaging straregy for place marketing rn
order to obtain iflterurban competitive advantage (Whitson and Macintosh 1996).
The place marketing of cities has also been considered by economic elites to have
rntemal advantages in selling a city as a cultural resource for gain, and as a mech-
anism of social control to engineer consensus among residents by all elites
(Keams and Phrlo 1993).
Kotler, Haider, and Rein (i993) have pornted out that cities that go through
growth-and-decline cycles and expenence external shocks from technological
changes, and that because lhe transformation from self-contained national econo-
mies to the global economy affects cities rn ways beyond their control, the need
for place marketing is a crihcal strar€gy. So, both declining cities and ascendant
citres focus on place marketing ln order to expand their pools oF business vlsitors
and tourjsts, attract new businesses, help existing businesses expand, and enlarge
thelr export markers The defeat of Athens by Atlanta in the comperition ro host
the 1996 100th annrversary Olympics (of partrcular importance to Greece) was a
direct result of place marketing rnvolvrng two powerful Atlanta based corpora-
ttons, Coca-Cola and CNN (Kotler, Haider, and Rein 1993, p 131) in conjunction
wlth other urban boosters wanting to promote Atlanta as the "next great Lnterna,
tronal crty" rn what Rutheiser (1996. I99?) has cal)ed "imagineerrng." Even crtres
188 HARRY H HILLER
with a tired old industrial image (e.g., Manchester-see Roche i994) have
attempted to use mega-events to transform their images. The Manchester 2000
Olympic bid explicitly liDked the proposed mega-event to urban renewal by iden-
tifying the event as the "Regenerauon Games" (Cochrane, Peck, and Tickell
1996)
The focus on image for economic advantage leads to a more careful focus on
mega-event advocates and promoters. After all, the decision to bid for and host
mega-events $ rn many ways a political decision in which interest groups/elites
become convinced ofthe importance of the project and then se€k to obtain large-
scale support. Working within poirtrcal economy, Hall (1992, 1994; Hall and Jen-
krns 1995) has pointed out that mega-events support both profit-making and the
self-aggrandizement of elites, in which it is assumed that the mega-event is of
benefit to all urban residents when the disadvantaged and powerless may have lir-
tle ro gain and much to lose. The question of who promotes mega-events and why
requires further research, but it ts clear that the assumption that mega-events ben-
efit or are supported by all urban residents because economic growth is necessar-
ily good for all or that trickle down benefits will reach them, is overstated. The
commodificatjon of expositions and the elite nature of Olympic sport, with irs
high performance athletes and corporate sponsors. tend to detract from the notron
that mega-events are akin to general public festivals. They do repr€sent special
interests, but whal needs to be pointed out here is that th€se interests are not
directly related just to the profit potential of the event but also to the broader role
which the event plays in place marketing the city.
MECA-EVENTS, URBAN RENEWAL, AND
LEISURE COMMODIFICATION
When mega-event analysts have focused on urban factors, then, the first point to
be discussed here is how the mega-evenr can be related to markcting, imagrng, or
reimaging a city for interurban competitive (largely economic) advantage (Padd-
ison I993). The second point situates the mega-event inro urban renewal strate-
gies. In fact, the most commonly recognized role whrch mega-events play in rela-
tion to lhe built environment of clties is the transfbrmation of space from uses
considered obsolete and decaying structures and the activities associated with
them-most typically, in the rnner city. Th€ shift from the industrial ciLy to the
postindustrial city has played a key role in precipitating such rnitiatives from the
Unrted Kingdom (Hughes 1993; Roche 1992). The decline of old industrial cities
such as Birmingham ( 1992 and 1996 Olymprc bids), Manchester ( 1996 and 2000
Olympic bids), and Sheffield (i991 World Student Games) not only meant tbat
the mega-event could become a place marketing lnrtiatlve but that it could polen-
tially play a role in the transformation of the built environment, including rmprov-
ing rts aging infrastructure (Roche 1994).
Toward an Urban Soclology af Mega-Events 189
The lands selected for mega-eveDt sites are most often cenlral city locations
wlth either obsolere uses or rn advanced states of deterioration. (One norable
exceptron was the 1980 Moscow Olympics, wbere the intent was to restrict down-
town growth, so all event sites were built at tbe crty's periphery, lncluding the
OJympic Viilage; see Gordon 1983, p. 156). Mega-ev€nt organrzers have learned
that unoccupred nonresidentiai property is likely to generate the least resistance
and controversy for what would amount to an urban renewal project because
mega-events require large t acb of land fo. new sfuctures. However, this is not
always available, and displacement may occur. Even when the mar! site itself is
either unoccupied or industrial, residual effects may occur on adjacent land that
lead to displacement. Olds (1998), for example, has demonstrated how Expo'86
in Vancouver led to evictions in the Downtown Easlside communrty along the
boundaries of the northem and easrern Expo site. The fact that the residents were
poor and living in rooming houses and residential hotels, whose space was
planned for upgrading to take advantage of the Iucrative tourist trade prompted by
the mega-event, fostered redevelopment and evictions. The gentrification of adja-
cent mega-event property (Homebush Bay) has aiso occurred in Sydney's "rust
belC' of industrial sites and working-class dwellings in what is known as the
Olymprc Conidor (Bounds 1996). Rutheiser (1996, 1997) found that th€ 1996
Atlanta Olympics was originally concejved as an initiator for inner city redevel-
opment Yet, in the end, Olympic organizers excluded much of the inner city by
only improving space "inside the fence" of Olympic venues. Clearly, the mega-
event can play a role iD the transformation of undervalued property and the
replacement of activrty and populations of a different social cJass. Land adjacent
to a mega-event site almost always undergoes significant capital appreciation l0
Because the physical struclures required for mega-events must of necessity
be built ad1acent to major trafflc arterials and/or rapid transit lines, and because
proxlmity to other servlces is aiso vital, central city locations are preferred over
distant suburbs. As noted above, thls vinually assures that the mega-event site
will be linked to some form of reciamatlon or renewal. One of the key devel-
opments of the postindustrial or postmodern cjty is the revitalization of rhe crty
lhrough gentrification, leisure, and entertainmenr (Hannigan 1995; Harvey
1989). The emphasrs on the urbanite as consumer in market-based landscapes
of spaces of pleasure and cullural production is ciearly transforrning city cen-
ters from the way we once knew them (Zukin 1991; Hannigan i998). Much
has been written about the role of Expositions in the celebration of consumer-
rsm, capitaiism, and technological progress (e.g., Benedict 1983), but novr' fiat
leisure and ente ainment have becorne increasingly commodified, central city
spaceincreasingly reflects struclures that serye as srban €ntertainment centers
(Sorkin 1992) or urban entertainment drstricts (LEDS) to p.oduce what Hanni-
gan (1998) has called "fantasy city" or what Ley (1996:298) calls "the conviv-
ral crty " This actrvity rs directed not only at urban residenrs but aiso al
tounsts In facl, urban tourism as commerciai acdvity arose as direct response
190 HARRY H, HILLER
to urban rndustnal decline (Law 1993). In this case, what the urban tounst
encounters is not really rhe city but tts consumer icons, which presumably
entertain the tourist with waves of pleasureable experrences.
In rnany ways, the mega-event itself fits this oblectrve of commodified lersure
(Roche 1992, 1994). It represents a sort ofDisnevfied experience nicely packaged
for its entertainment value and offering multiple consumer opportunitres (Zukln
1995). Even events Iike the Olympjcs bring with them cultural festrvals, height-
ened street activity, and all kinds ofnonathletic entertainment in afesdval o. party
atmosphere (Hiller 1990) There m ay be status-enhancin g value for both res idenb
and tourists rn attending the event Commemorative souv€nirc and various tnn-
kets are sold in large numbers. Pin trading is a major cornponent of Olymprc streer
activity (Homa and Olmsted I989) Fragmenrs of inrernational cultures arc p.e-
sented for their entertainment value and simuiations of these cultures are aiwavs
a part ofexposition sites (Craik 1989, p. 10t).
Mega-events are also dramatizations of power or desired power both for host
cities and for the forces of production that stand behind the event. If the first
World's Farr in 1851 dramatized the ideals ofindustrial capitalism ofproduction
and consumption, a process which continues to this day (Benedict 1983, p. 2),
then the corporate sponsorships of the modern Olympics schools populations with
the same ob;ectives-either overtiy or more subtly (Jennings 1996). Notwith-
standing de international nature of the mcga-event, the role of the mega-evenr in
the commodification of leisure is partlcularly noteworthy at the local level. For
example, th€ 1988 Exposition in Brisbane, Australia, drew about 80% of its
attendees from the local area (Craik 1989, p, 103; Bennert 1991, p.32), a nor
unusual percentage that demonstrates lhe heavy reliance on local consumerrst
patronage. In that sense, the Brisbane Expo could be considered primarily a six-
month carnival of commodified leisure for urban residents, many of whom made
multiple visrts to the site.
S ince the mega-event rtseif is of restricted duration, it is not Just the event which
must be analyzed for its broader cultural meanings but what role the event plays
in the urban processes of specific cities. For example, what are the postevent uses
of the facrlities constructed? it is here that we see the role which mega-events play
in the transformation of urban space for leisure consumption, in what Mullins
(1991) has called "consumption compounds." Montreal provides an interesting
example as ir hosted both the 1967 Expo and the 1976 Olympics. The Expo site
now houses an amusement park called La Roncie, the former U.S. pavilion (a
spectacular Buckminster Fulier geodesic dome) is now a touristeducational envi-
ronmental display called Biosphere, and the former French pavillion is a casrno.
The main Olympic site is now called Monrreal Olymprc Park. The Olymprc Sta-
drum not only hosts athletic and musrcal events now but has a glassed cable car
ride to the top of the "world's tallest inclined tower" as a vlsltor attraction. Other
transformations of Olympic-built sfuctures on the sire, whlch draws 3.2 million
vlsltors a year, rnclude a Biodome, Insectaflum, theater, museum, and sports cen-
fawatd an lJrban socology af Me1a-EvenIs 191
ter While both mega-event sttes have had only minimal peripherai gentriflcation
effecrs,ll they have contributed Lo consumpllve letsure for Montrealers them-
selves as well as serving as "attractions" for nonresident tourists.
This review of the literature shows how mega-events are tyPically interpreted rn
the conrext of touflsm./urban lourism or as exemplars of the Postmodern city
Much less attenlion has been given to mega-events as a factor in concrete urban
processes l2 What is needed is a clearer understanding ofmega-events with urban
sociologicai dimensrons Therefore, I propose a more urban conceprualizatlon of
mega-events with lhis perspective in mjnd
MEGA-EVENTS AS URBAN INTERVENTIONS
Mega-€vents are high priorlty events which intervene in normal urban processes
by requiring site preparation and large-scale mobilization ofresources to facilitate
them.13 While there rs some sense lhat the mega-event is embraced by the metro-
politan region, it is primarily site-sPecific Thus, site selection itself is a reflection
of urban dynamics which is contestable or which rePresents pow€r reiationships
within the city. The prior question of which groups have even placed the mega-
evenf on the urban agenda is also important, but once the event is adopted and the
bid accepted, the mega-event becomes an intrusion on existing space which is
transformed by the evenl. We have already seen that even sPace peripheral to the
site may be transformed. so the site and lls perlphery mustbe viewed as a loca[on
of conflicting interests. How the slte is transformed is also debateabie because of
postevenl and cost rmplications, often involving public funds. Infrastructural
rmprovements, access changes, amenity legactes, and struclural additlons are all
consequences of human decrsions lhat have urban consequences Therefore, the
focus proposed here ts not so much on lhe macro questions of whal this tlansfor-
matjon represents ln the evolution of human setllements but on how mega-evenls
alter urban processes. For example, the decisron that a city makes aboul where tt
will site the mega-event has urban implications. in additron, how the site is devel-
oped has long-term consequences for the city
The mega-event ts not Just somelhing that happens at a particular point In trme
from which we can measure iLs economtc effecrs (as most tyPically assumed ln
the tourrsm models) bul ts something thal must be understood in its urban context
longitudinally. A linkage model can be utilized that disaggregares the different
eiemenrs of the event as both dependent and independent variables (Hiller 1998)
A forward linkctge ponts out how the event itself is the cause of effects The
mega-evenL may create employment, :mprove roads, increase tourlsm, or change
the built form of a site Some ctTects may be quantifiable. while other effects (e g ,
community pride) may not be, but the end results are all attributable to the event,
whether vlewed positrvely or negatjvely Buckward linkages rcfer to the back-
ground objechves or lnlerests that sland behlnd the event They may provide the
192 HARRY H HILLER
overt legitimatrons for the event ("tbe event wili put our cjry on the map so we
need to make a good impression" as a legirimation for public expenditures, "it will
create jobs" as a legrtimation for public support, etc.) and help address questrons
about "why" a city is dorng this. It also addresses the questron of interest groups
behind the mega-event and attempts to determine why they are advocates of the
event. Backward linkages make the event itself more of a dependent variable in
demonstrating how the mega-ovent is a factor in attaining other effects (e.g, "the
event will help attlact external capiral") for the ciry
A parallel Linkage refers to a factor that is resrdual to the event itself. It may be
a long-term consequence unexpected or even unrecognized by organtzers or the
general public. Politicians may find that the high profi1e event raises their popu-
lariry or citizens may feel more positive about their city. Ciry traffic may flow bet-
ler as a result of infrastructure imp.ovements or genrrificationmay begin taking
place on pnvate land near a "prestigious" Olympic site. The point is that mega-
event organizers had no control over these consequeDces and may nor have anhc-
ipated them, for they were related to other issues such as mortgage rates, housing
or office vacancy rates, or otber initiatives or developments elsewhere in the city
or country Many urban impacts are residual in nature becalrse tbey might be par-
tially linked to lhe event bur are relaied ro many other factors as weli.
The three types of linkages identified here are nor necessarily neat comparf
ments but the linkage model is useful because it avoids simplistic cause/effects
and demonstrates how impacts may be complex, cross-cufting, and not unidimen-
sional. It also ensures that the mega-€vent is placed in its full urban conrext as an
urban event rather ihan something that is parachuted in and then drsappears. From
lhis persp€ctive, the mega-evcnt is an urban actlvlty, ls generated and promoted
by urban forces, and has urban consequences. This model also helps differentiate
between the preevent and postevenr periods, which ensures a more longitudinal
analysrs
The Phases in a Longiludinal Analysrs
The three phases in the evolution of a mega-event can be identified as
preevent, event, and postevenr, and these will be analyzed in rerms of their
urban meaning. The primary actors in this process are evenl advocates, cvcnr
organrzers, the urban economic eiite conststing of land owners and corporate
leaders, civic leaders and city planners, the host urban communrty at large, and
local communitres The process from bidding to impiementation, to hosting and
the event aftermath invoives building a support base of coaiitrons from among
theso interest groups that will not ol]]y ensure a successful event but will pro
duce urban changes consonant with the background linkages and rationales for
the event
Touaro an thban Sanoloy ot Me6a-Ftents
Phase l Prcevent
The preevent phase for a mega-event is essentrally a planning phase and, of
necessity, rnvolves urban planning from site selecllon to transportatlon lssues to
houslng. It rs divided into two components: bidding and preparation Iflhe hid rs
not successful Lhen, of course, the preparation component does nor occur How-
ever, competitive brdding forces a bid crty to articulate mor€ precisely than ever
all aspects of the bid plan, and it must be shown how the bid plan deals with the
event requirements laid out by the sponsor. In otlrer words, there is an enormous
amount ofplanning that must be represented in the bid plan and whjch is specrfied
in the bid book (for the Olympics, it is called the candidature fiie). This involves
not only financial matters but also a site development plan, and rs oflen contained
in multiple volumes Presumably, the bid selection decision is based on this Plan,
though ultimately, il is clear that the decision is primarily political. NeverLheless,
achieving serious consideration in the final bid decision is dependent on havlng a
clear plan for how the mega-event wouid be situated and accomodated within the
host city. Some fine-tuning occurs in lhe preparation perrod, but the generaL out-
lines of the plan in terms of urban siling are normally detemined in the bid period.
Mega-event planning is top-down planning. Just as the idea to bid is itself nor-
maliy an idea of an elite group that then lries to sell the rdea to olher elites and
urban residenls at large, so is mega-event planning the sPecification of a desrgn
plan (sometimes with site alternatives) for how the city could accomodate the
event lo whjch citizens will be given an opportunity to react. The idea of citizen
pa.ticipahon is, then, pnmarily merely responding to a plan concejved by oth-
ers,ra and community hearings often become information sessions where planners
impari the rationale and nature of the plan rather than deal with basic questions
about whether the community even wants the event in their area-for example,
the Cape Town 2004 Olympic bid (Hiller forthcoming) or the Sheflteld 1991
World Student Games bid (Roche 1994). Since the foundatron of the plan is laid
in the brd phase, there is always a tendency for urban residents Lo see the exerclse
as only hypothetical and, lherefore, not lo take it seriously. When cilizens do take
it senously, rt can be counrered that this is only an early plan. But the problem is
that. when and if the brd rs successful. something conceived by others as only a
conceptual rdea takes on a iife of its own as r/re plan. Once a city wins the bid,
then, of course, fast track planning and implementatron goes inlo effect, because
now the trmelines for preparation are fixed, and little lime can be wasted on con-
troversy anri consultauon. Thus, mega-events present all kinds of dilemmas for
urban planners and host communrties alike The sociology of bid p)annrng and
event preparation is something requiring more careful analysis.
In some ways, this may appear lo be little different from any other urban devel-
opment proposal (e.g., a regional shopping mall), but lhe difference with a mega
event is lhat Lhe evenl irself has presrige, urgency, and a sense of external obliga-
tion lhat ofren leads politicians and organrzers to subverl normal planning proce-
194 HARRYH H ILLER
dures (e.9., zoning laws, appeals, etc.; see Hiller and Moylan 1999). The scale of
the urban space required for the mega-evenr is also significant- Expo 1986 in Van-
couver, for instance, began the massive redevelopment of the False Creek area
from a domed stadium to offices, retail and so on, and housing but also prompted
a rapid transit system, conventioo cenLer, and pier deveLopment (Gutstein 1986).
Phase 2: Event
The event itself creates its own urban dynamics. Visitors/participants become
consumers of the commodifications of local culture, and increased demand may
lead to price rises 1n stores, restaurants, and hotels Rental accomodations may
become scarce or rents may soar as the event draws event officials, preparatlon
crews, inlemalional delegates, and media entourage to live in the community for
a longer period of time. Displacement, gentrification, and loss of low rncome
houslng may occur ro accomodate event housrng demards (Hall and Hodges
1996). Community residents may experience rncreased noise levels or rraffic con-
gestion (e.9., the Taejon, Korea, 1993 Expo; see Jeong and Faulkner 1996). In
some cases, normai work pattems may be disturbed due to evenr transil demands.
On the other hand, the mood of urban residents may change dramatically during
[he coulse of the evenr through the creation of excitement and a festival atmo-
sphere that makes urban life more enjoyable and that celebrates posirive emodon
(e.g-, the 1988 Calgary Olympics; see Hiller 1990) Volunteerism for the evenr
mrght increase a sense of identification and satisfaclion with the community (Gor,
ney and Busser 1996). Ley and Olds (1988, p.208) found thar the 1986 Vancou-
ver Expo advanced intersubjective bonds among residenrs because it promoted
visits from nonresident friends and relatives, who did not come to Vancouverlusr
to attend Expo but used the mega-event as the prompter or occasion to travel to
the city. The focus on most mega-events has been on the event itself, when more
research attention needs to be given to its effect on the daily routines of urban res-
idents. The question that follows, of course, is how these effecrs are distributed
differentially among city dwellers.
Phase 3. Posteyent
In the postevent phase, it is presumeci that urban residents can return to their
normal activities when the mega-evenL has concluded, but it is impoftant to deter-
mine rf and how the mega-event permanentiy altered those normal pattems in any
way. Or, to put it another way, how have the lnfrasructural changes altered./
rmproved the provlsion of urban servrces (e.9., transportatton). Most citiesseek to
ensure that some facililes/service snhaDcemenLs occur as a ;onsequence of the
mega-event, most typically the upgrading of fapid transrt New athletic or com-
munrty facilitres may also be the legacy. Increasingly, mega-event organlzers
legitimate the event to cities by identifying these improvements as evenr "lega-
'r93
fowarrj an Urban Soctoiogy of Mega-Events 195
cies" even before the event is held Event legacies are understood to be permanent
improvements to the built environment. Such improvements, of course, may ben-
efit some people more than others.
However, the major issue that rs highlighted by the conclusion of the event is
after-use- How wrll the main event structures be used once the event is over? In
some cases (e g, the 1964 New York World's Fair), the site can struggle for a
long time with no apparenl planned use and fall rnto disrepair. In oLher cases (e.9.,
the 1986 Vancouver Expo), the event structures may be largely removed to pro-
duce what has been called "a throw-away event," and the site redeveloped. Other
mega events have produced permanent housing or signatur€ sLmctures that play a
highly symbolic role for the cities' identity. Mega-event sites have also anchored
parks and commodifted leisure, as we have already noled. Perhaps one of the
greatest urban issues is not just the construction costs of these structures (if Per-
manent) and future uses, but the economrc vrability oftheir maintenance into per-
petuity. It is perhaps no wonder that therr adaptability to commodified leisure and
gentrification is not only coextensive with conlemporary urban processes but also
resolves fiscal concerns. The problems of aiigning the structural implications of
event requirements with uses congeniaJ with long-term crty needs is a significant
urban problem.
Key Research Questions
We can now sketch a research agenda that links the three phases in the life-
cycle of rhe meg,l-evenl to the hosr clly.
Preevent Phase: Bid Camponent
While crties as corporate entities may endorse a bid, bidding always begins wtth
entrepreneurral rndivrduais, who arouse support among elite segments and then
attempt to secure the support of other elites, the civic political administration, and
urban residents at large. In most cases, bid groups stand outside the existing dem-
ocratic structures. Who initiates brdding and why? What interests are represenled
rn bid advocates and how does the city deal with them? What legltimations are
used? How is lhe projected mega-event linked to festructuring obJectivos and land
use changes? What oppositron develops and why? In what ways does the bidding
process reveal socral fractures or conflicts within the crty? Whar fiscal commit-
ments does the city make in bidding and what assumptrons stand behrnd the bid?
What is the relation between marketrng the bid to the intemauonal sponsonng
body and rhe case made to local residents? To what extent does the need for strong
civic support to strengthen the bid internationally submerge or dismiss opposiLion
within the city? What is the relationship between the bid organization and city
aulhorities? Are urban planners part of the pianning team? Who has the Power ln
196 HARRY H HILLER
site seiections? What is the relarionship between different levels of governmenr
and lhe mega-event?
Preparatoty Component
Once the ciecision is made and the mega-event is awarded to a city, what unre-
solved urban issues re-emerge? Typically, when the need for internal urury ts
required in the intemational compedtion, intemal conflict rnay be submerged, but
after the award has been made, intemal conflict may resurface. Who are the actors
in thrs conflict and who do they represent? lvhat is the reiationship between the
bid plan and the implementarion plan? What promises or assumptions contained
in the bid plan are ignored or changed in implementation, and why? What is the
relationship between the organiztng committee (an independent body) and crvic
authorities? How does the urgency of preparation legitimat€ alterations or short-
cuts in the normal planning process? What urban infrastructurai changes are
implemented and what difference do they make both for the event and for the
city? What items are elevated on the urban agenda and which items lose their pri-
ority glven the mega-event? What are the implications of unexpected or higher
costs and how does the city pay for infrasrructural costs? Who benefits most from
construction and other elements of preparation? What preparations are made for
those who might be disadvantaged by rhe eyent or by the preparation for it?
Event Phase
In actuality, what is the relationship between the event and the city? To what
extent do crtizens become rnvoived and who are the oncs who do so? How and
why? Who participates in the event and who is denied access through such things
as ticket availability? Who benefits fie most lrom the event? Are efforts made to
involve the ennre city in the evenr? If so, what are these efforts? To what extent
does the event become hegemonous to the urban populace? What communihes
are adversely affected, and how are they so affected? How does [he dominance of
the event affect other urban institutions? What social controls are in place to
ensure slabllity? Are personal freedorDs at sk? How are event crises dealt wift?
How does the city manage the media and who sells the message? How is bad press
received? How is the event useful in place marketing?
What |emporary changes are made ro the facade of the city to rmprove its rmag-
ery or to create a different aura? What auxrliary or independent events are sched-
uled for the time of the mega-event, and at whom are they directed? What is rhe
mood in the city? What factors have creared or changed that mood? Who serves
as voiunteers for the event? How do people of different sratus groups become
involved in the event? Who rs apathetic about the event and why? How do groups
opposrng the event react during the event? What role does the city play in provid-
ing support services (e.g , policing) and what are the costs to the city?
TowarrJ an Urban Soctology of Mega-Events 197
/'oStevent
What unexpected conseguences of the mega-evcnt are expenenced by the city?
What struggles occur in the afErmath of the event when it becomes clear to what
extenr the event was a success and what tts faiiures were? What were the fiscal
and social costs of the event lo the crty?15 How are the mega-€vent sites lrans-
formed for postevent use? What are the land use changes from Preevenl lo
postevent? Whal are the specific event legacies, especially io the butlt envrron-
ment? How will these legacies be maintained? Are there any housing legacies or
housing impacts? How have property values been affected in the region of lhe
site? How has the mega-event altered pubiic PercePtions of the site? What retro-
spectlve views do local resldents have about the event? How has lhe eveni perma-
nently transformed the city? What PopuLation shifts were PromPted by the mega-
event? Has the mega-event been successful in place marketing the city so that
inward rnvestment has occurred, new jobs have been created' or in-mrgration took
place? What items that lost lheir pdority on the urban agenda resurface and what
were lhe consequences oI the]r poslponemenl?
Because mega-events are one-time events, there is little incentive for host cities
to engage in tborough evaluations and research Governments are seldom inter-
ested in supporting such research because they do not want the event to be defined
as anything but successful, and so give positive sptns to anything even vaguely
negative. The optimism of positive preevent economic forecasts is seldom tested
against ultimate outcomes in any precise way (Crompton and McKay 1994;
Roche 1992, p. 562), although some outcomes aro obvious (e.g., the failure ofthe
1984 New Orleans World's Fair to meet attendanceprojections; Dimanche 1996)'
Job creation through expanded tou sm has often been an anticipal€d result of |he
mega-event in the context of urban resLrucruring (Shultis, Johnson, and Twynam
1996; Hall 1992), but again. there is little systematic reasearch on lhis theme'
Impacts pertainlng to urban rgnewal are typical, but since many of these observa-
tions are made in the context of tourism rather than by urban analysts, therr impli-
cations ;n terms of urban processes have not beon develoPed (Dimanche 1996;
Mules 1993, Hall 1996, 1997) Furthermore, mega-event organizations are dis-
banded soon after the event, and the emphasis is placed on winding things up
rather than prolonging the organization's exlstence with big-picture queslions
MEGA.EVENTS AND THEORIES AND
PROCESSES OF URBAN CHANGE
The thrust of thls argument ls that lnstead of the focus belng on the mega event
that happens to have occured in a cily and that reflects domlnant cultural lhemes
and ideologies, the focus oughl to be on the city and how the mega-eYent contnb-
utes to and is reflective ofprocesses ofurban change It is Possible to list a number
HARRY H HILLER
of ways in which the mega-event can be an instrlrment of specific urban forces
For example, urban elites and suburbanrres may be embarassed by urban blight, so
the mega-event becomes the mechanrsm that kickstarts urban renewal. and the
mega-€vent has the potential to obliterate the blighr ln a comprehensrve and
urgent manner Furthermore, the high profile narure of the evenr may help the clty
to enlist regional and national governmentai financial support that otherwise may
not have been forthcoming so quickly and to such a degree. In fact, the profile of
the evenl may help to legitimate fiscal uansfers from higher leveis of govemment
that are unavailable to other cities. Because of the importancd of the event,
appeals to federal officials mrght also be made for assistance ln rnfrastructural
matters such as mass transpoftation upgrades or airport upgrades which, again,
might not have been on the top of the agenda without the mega-ev€nt. Such use of
public funds led Cochrane, Peck, and Tickell (1996, p. 1320) to say thar the
emphasis on growth coalitions in this kind of booste sh activiry needs to be
replaced by an emphasis on grant coalitions where public funds are sought to sup-
port these transformations. In the process of transforming areas of blight. property
values change, and it is to be expected thar land uses will change as weil. Thus, in
the long-range scheme of things, the mega-event can piay a significant role rn
urban change but only in the context of other changes of redevelopment and revi-
talization that also cont bute ro urban transfolmation.
In short, then, mega-events are catalysts for urban change, specifically in loca-
tions where change is considered desirable by urban elires. ln particular, the size
of the mega-event sjte and the adjacent area means that a significant segment of
urban space will undergo a substantial land use change The combinahon of
unlque event requirements and postevent use may spark creativity in planning that
may not have occurred otherwise. Projects that have an urban rmpact may be
taken on that might otherwise be consrdered too ambltious or too expensive
because the mega-event mobilizes funding (public and private) that might not oth-
erwise have been forthcoming.'o Planning and implementation have fixed com-
pletion dates that must follow a tight scheduie whiqh, on the one hand, ensures
results rather than unendrng deliberation but, on the other hand, may produce
autocracy against whlch opposition may arise. lnfrastructural improvements
related to the event (but required anyway) may improve urban life but at a signrf-
icant cost because the lmprovements are made rn a compressed period rather than
amortizing costs over a longer perrod of trme-vindicatrng opponents who pornt
to the high cost of the mega-event. Thus, mega-events play a cntical role rn sup-
porting the transformation of urban space (see Figure I ). Grven the facr that mega-
events are typically sited in the cenrral city in what urban ecologisrs would label
"zones in transitron," the land use change marked by the mega-event (especrally
when related to the commodiflcarion of leisure) plays a roie in subsequent land
use changes for the sunounding area as well (Hiller and Moylan 1999).
There is no question that the decision by cities to host mega-events is reLated to
pro-growth ideologies and coaLtrons The inrerest of local governmenrs rn
198
Toward an Urban Soctology of Mega-Event5 199
Catalyst for urban change
Land use change of significant urban space
Sparks creativity in urban planning
Mobilizes funding (public sector and pnvate sector)
Supports projects otherwise considered too ambitious o. expensive
Requires completion by set dates
Swe€prng infrastructural improvements in select domaios
(e g., transpo.tation)
Produce signature structures which redefines urban space
Figure 1. fhe Roles Which Mega-EvenE Can Play in Urban Processess
encouraging developmelL as a tax source ls undeniable. Furthermore, land devel-
opers and local businesses may also support pro-growth strategies, and their profit
prospects may be enhanced through mega-events. However, whether m€ga-
events truly do produce such benefits on a large scale (as opposed to oniy for
select persons), even among economic interruts as widely as is assumed, is open
for questron. In comparison to the growth machrne approach, which suggests
decrsron makrng by tighlly knrt coalitions, mega-events are best understood as the
product of an alliance of interests partially actrng as a growth network (Gottdeiner
1994,p 143) but also partially serving as an oppoftunity rlelwork where a variety
of economic and non-economrc interests may be served. For example, civic pride
cannot be treated simply as a delusion of grandeur. whetber at the grass roots or
among local corporations who ride on the coattails of the prestige of the event.
This focus on opportunity networks is lmportant because it suggests a loose coa-
Iilion of diverse interests (rather than something hegemonic in a purely economic
sense) and also suggests that some seclors of society may be more supportive than
others. whlch may be apalhetlc or rn clear opposlfion. ln short, not everyone con-
siders hosting a mega-event as a ciesrrabie opporrunrty.
This observarron suggests that the new urban sociology has considerable utiliry
when considering the urban srgnficance of mega-events but that it needs lo be
modifred to allow for a broader range of interests to be considered Having sard
thrs, however, it is nor wlthout significance that mega events always begin as
prolects of select members of lhe elire (in either the public sector and/or the pri-
2AO HARRY H HILTER
vate sector), who |ry lo sell both the pubhc at )arge and the elite sectors them-
selves on the imporlance ofsupporting the mega-event The fact that there would
be a wide range of opinions on such an undertaking at both the grass roots and
among elites shouid be no surprise. It also suggests that local faclors (including
finances, culture, and local govemment; e.g., Flanagan 1993, p. 95) must be care-
fully analyzed as a counterpoint io sweeping generahzations about hegemonic
eiites imposing a mega-event agenda. Rosentraub and Helrnke (1996) have
already pointed out in their study of a medium-sized city that tho economic actors
of growth coalitions and the politrcal actors of regimes both have played impor-
tant roles in various urban initiatives. Furthermore, the new urban sociology
encourages analysts to assess the assumptions ofboosterism advocates that mega-
events are always in the best lnterests of a city and rts development goals when, in
reality, their effects may be overblown or at least very uneven in both the short
term and long tems.
To theextent that mega-events do participate rn the restructuring of urban
space, they represent the result of a social rmaginary in which select urban space
(identified as "abstract space" rn the work of Lefebvre 1990) is redesigned
according to a vision of how this space could be lransformed for drfferent pur-
poses The visions of government and business for that space may conflict with its
current uses in everyday liie ("social space"), which may be the source of conflict
wlthin the city. The mega-event itself may also be symbolic of the kind of rmagr-
neering whrch Rutheiser (1996, 1997) discussed in r€lation to the city of Atlanta,
where international image and central city transformations of space went hand-in-
hand with redesigning the city, while ignoring urban populatrons who used that
space and problems which did not fit that lmage. It is not surprising, then, that
mega-events often serve as triggers for competjng ideas of how select urban space
should be utilized.
The use of sport facilities as an urban development strategy has been recog-
nized, and there is some evidence that investments in stadiums, for example, are
poor generators of urban economic growth (Baade and Dye 1988). But the stadi-
ums so constructed and the sport teams which they facilitate Play an important
symbolic role for the crhes (Roseniraub et al i994, p 222, Erchner 1993). Many
mega-events provide sport facilities for professional sport teams (e-9., the Atianta
1996 Olympic stadium is now home for the Atlanta Braves baseball Ieam). Whiie
the needs of professional sports teams are of longer duration than those of a mega-
event, lt could be that the mega-event itself is also a poor mechanism for urban
economic growth. What mega-events anci sport facrliues have in common ls lhe
symbolic role they play both for city residents' identification with the city and for
intercity and intemational piace marketing. V/e still have much lo learn to deler-
mine how to assess this symbolic role of mega-events
lf new stadiums and their city-represenlative sport teams promole urban boost-
erism, and if it is true that boosterism supports pro-growth rdeologies which may
reflect class interests (Schimmel 1995), then there rs no reason to believe that
Toward an llrban Soctaloy af Mega-Events 2o1
mega-events (and the new consfuction that they require) may not also Play the
same role within cities, and contribute new dynamics to contestations over land
use. In lhat sense, mega-events can play a siBnificant foie in festructurlng urban
space. But mega-events also have the potentlal to serve as defining momenrs in
the evolutlon of a city by creating new initiaiives, new directions' and new struc-
tures that may not have a sen otherwise. it is for thrs reason that in an analysts a
mega-event must be seen as both an independent variable or cause of urban
change, and as a dependent variable reflecting broader urban forces at work ln
either case, mega-events cannot be understood outside of their urban context'
\OTES
l Media exposure is often considered a soft benefit ofa megr-event for a host city bcc'use its
existence, though real, is difficult to measure in economic Ierms (Sinmons md Urquhart 1994)
2. M ules and McDona ld ( 1994, P 49) use the concept of " induced v is italion" to discuss the torlJ-
ism promodonal effect of spEcial events
3- One report indrcaled thatnine-tenths ofthe d€veloped world and two-thirds ofthe developing
world walched at leastparts oflhe 1996 Atlanta OlymPics (Marketing Matten no 9 1996)
4 Cunnjngham and Taylor (1995) oote thar whereas corporrte sponsorship origintlly was more
al(ruislic, it now has become a more stralegic markedng devic€ Event marketing has recenUy quadru'
pled, while other forms of advertrsrng are rn decline Fuji for example usEd lhe 1984 Olympics of
whicb it was a spooso. to introduce its relatjvely rew name in the United States in order to rrclease
m ke! shar€ (Catherwood and Van Kirk 199?)
5 The cornmercraliz^tion of fte Olympic movement has been well-documented Gee Nixon
1986 i Jenninss 1996)
6 For Example, the World Pohce and Fire Games draws about 12 000 panicipanls, which ior a
city oia mrllion or less rrught be consrdered a mega event. in view of the Local organizatron and preP
arauoD required and the sudden influx of visrtors' all trumpered by local media However, r! is unlikely
that this occasron will lead to infrastmctural chan8€s in the crly or even to Dew lounsm rnrtlar'ves sucn
ashotel consrrucuon Theiowmediaprofileoffiiseventoutsid€oflhelocalareaalsofeducesiL5srg_
nificance as a mega-even(
7 The Cape Town 2004 Surnmer Olympic bid took Place precrsely a! the time that tourism was
begrnnrng rc expand tn South Airica With the fall of aPartbeid rn 1990 and the first d€mocratic elec-
oons in the counFy berng b€ld in 1994, and after years of experieflcing anll-aparlheid politrcal and
€cononuc sanctlons and boycotts. the "new soutb Afnca expenenced a tounsm boom from the early
to nxd-1990s In 1985, only ?2?,552 foreign lourrsE had visited South Airica, bur bv l990 tourist
numbers rI had jumped Io 1,029,094, and by 1995, !o 4 684 064 Consequently, ho(eLrers arrlrnes'
banks. and lersure rndustries were kev backers of the Olympic brd Cape Town projected aLl krnds of
new hotel consgucrion (Soulh Africa 1996)
I Ritchie and Smrth s (1991) study of the impac! of mega events on elhrncing a city ! intema-
tional image shows what they call 'awareness d€cay" from the hrgh point of tb€ mega-event to the
I C^lgary (1988 Winter Olympics)and Brisbane (Expo 1988) afe both ascendanL cr0es' Benn€tt
consrders the Bnsbane Expo to be a srgnai ofthe crly s Iransformatlon from a provrncial backwarer to
a world crty and, above all, a me^ns for iocal resldenls Io pafLlclpal€ In lhls sanslormatroD urougn
r€Dea!ed adendance
l0 Rutheiser(1996,0 270) refers ro this transformarion in Atlanta as re neighbonng
2O2 HARRY H HTLLER
I I The housing built for the Olympic Village is now pr€donrlnantiy a r€riremenr cornrnunrry The
specracular and [uturisrc housing of Habirar '67 is now an exctusive s(uclure (Dexn l986)
12 CornpaJe Roche (1992), wbo makes a sirmlrr porn!
13- The use of the word normal may be somewhar elusive here as nomal may tmply a srale of
eqDilibrium that s€ldom exisrs Growing cioes consrantly expenence lressur€s for rhe fedevelopmenr
of Iand or the developmenr of vacan! land, whrch are someumEs mega-projects in thernselves Th€y
may, jn some instances, also be inrusive On the orher hand, the mega-event ls often considered aD ini
oative [aken by lhe crry i6elf (or at least adopred by rhe ci!y), and because of (bE event s high profile,
fast-track prepamlion, and requrremcnLs for public Funds, rr often conrrols rhe urban rgenda for a rime
14. For an interesling discussion ofhow rh€ ToroDto bid was modified through cirizen parrrcrpa-
tion, se€ Krdd (1992)
15 i am deliberar€ly avoiding a Iengrhy discussion ofthe conplex marcr of mega-evenr finances
Most mega-events can be operatiorally self,fitrancing if rheir markering is successful and they arc
well-managed, bur lhe major probleln is wirh srnrctural and infrasrrucrlral costs. The issu€ here is lha!
of appropriatitrg lhe costs of a fixed asser thar may bave a one,hundred-year life span over an event
that lasts only thee weeks or three months. AIso, infraslructural improvemenrs presumably creae
benefits rhar have a longer life rhan rbe event rtself aDd thar benefit cirizens other tban mega-event
users
l6 Architects have always Ioved mega-events because of the opportuniry for creative d€sign and
dEep pocket5. For example, Moshe Safdi€, rhe crearor of Habitat at Expo 1967 in Monrreal, felt thar
World s Fairs should bejudged by rbe exrent ro which they are caratysts for new developmental con-
cepts (Fulford 1969, p 109) Habital became a real visual symbot for iururisLic housing by making
each apartmenr garden-like, but (he conceptnever was adapted for mass housing, and the demonstra-
troo project became an eli(e apnflmenr complex
REFERENCES
Allan, E R I- 1997 "lnremadonal Exposrtions: Pasr, Presenr, and Fururc " Pp 29-42 in TIE Cl1aUeryes
oflnternationaL Ltpoxnio,l! u1 v Thttd Miqeniu,n, ediL€d by D Anderson and J R B Rirchie
Calgary, AIberlnr Universly of Calgary Faculty oi Managemenr
Baade, R-A , and R F Dye 1988 "Sporr Stadiums and Area Developmenl A Crirrcal Revrew Err-
^omic 
DeveLopnent Quattefu Z 265-215
B€Dedict, B l983 The AnhropoloSy of Wt ll r Fai..r Berkeley, CAr Scolar Press
B€nnetr, T l99l."TheShaprngofThrngstoCome: Expo'88 " Crlnlral Sfidies 5:3O-5t
Bounds, M M. 1996 "Laying dre Turf for the Specracle: A Baseline Srudy for an Otympic Sire
Unpublished manuscnpr. Universiry of Westem Sydney, Macarthur
Castells M 1983 The Ciry and tlg Gtuss.ook. London: Edward Amold-
Crtherwood, D W, and R C Van Knk 1992 Tlrc Carrylete Gtide rc Special Event Mana#men!
New Yorki John Wiley
Cochrane,A,J Peck,andA Tickell l996 "Manches(er Plays Games: Exploring rhe Local PoliLics
ofGlobalisadon " Utbaa Studies 33: 1319 1336
Craik, J l989 'Tle Expo Expeflence: The Polihcs ofExposirions" Australian,Canadian Srtdies l:
95-1r I
Cro mpton, J I 994 "Benefi Ls aDd R isks As so ciared w ith S ponsorshrp of Malor EverLs " F€rrival Mdn
agene a^d E e Tourisn: An Intena oMi Jow al2: 65-74
Crompton, J., and S L- McKay l994 "Measuring the Econoruc lmpacrofFestivals and Even6: Some
Myths, Misapplicauons and Ethrcal Dilemmas " FestinL Manatetne and Ew Tourkn: An
t nte rnatianaL J outnal 2: 13 -43
Cunningham, M.H.. and S F Taytor 1995 "Elent MaJkenng: Srale oi rh€ Indusrry and Research
Alenda ' Fcstiral Manatemenr and Erent Tountn An lntemaiual Joumal2 65-14
Toward an Urban Socialagy af Mega Events
1998 Fanraty Ciry New York: RoutledS€
203 244 HARRY H H]LLER
Dean. A 0 1986 "EvaluaLlon: Habital A G€neration Larer "/( lilecun, 1 5 : 52 55
de Lange, P 1998 The Game! Citie! PIa.,, Monument Park, South Africar C P de Lange Publishe$
Dimancbe, F 1996 'Specral Events Legacy; The t984 Summer world's Farr in New Orleans " Fsr-
lNalManagel ent and EventTo rtrttl An Inktnatio aL Journal 4:4954
Euchner.CC 1993 PlalngThe Field WDSpa Tean! Move Atd Cities FigltTa KeepTlent B^l
timore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univelsrty Press
FlAnagan, W G 1,993 Conterryordtj Ut'ban So(iaLogJ New York: Cambridge Universirv Press
Fuliord, R. ]969 Thi!wa$ Erpo Toronto: Mcclelland and Stewari
G.tz, D 1997 Eve Managente atld ErenrTouism Ein'Lsford, NY: Cognizant
Gordon,BF 1983 Olyt|pk Ar.hkclure Eu ding for lft Sun,netCa,rar New York:Jobn Wiley
Gomey S M. and J A- Busset i996 "The Effecl of Prrticipadon in a Special Even! on Imponance
and Sadsfaction wrLb Community Life ' FestinL Managenvu anLl Eeent Touitm An thte.'
nark"taL J ounnl 3: 139-148
Goltderner, M l994.TIt New Urban So.iidldgl. Nelv Yorkr Mccraw-Hrll-
Gotrdeiner, M., and J R F€agin 1988. "The Parddigm Shrft in Urban Sociolaly " UtbdnAJlaLrs Quar
rcrly?4: 163-187
Gutstein, D 1986- 'The ImpactofExpo on Vancouver " PP 65'99 in R Anderson and E wachtel
(eds),The Expo Story, editedbyR Anderson and E Wachlel Madera Park British Colum'
bia, Canadar Hrrbour Publishrng
Hall,CM 1992 HalLnnrkToun Erents London Belhaven
)994 Toun!Dr tnd Paliticr. New York: John wiley
lt96 'Hallmark Evens and Urban Reimagrng SraregLes " Pp 361 319 in Practk:itlr
R e lpon! ibte T outi t|,r- el Iled by L Harnson and w Ilusbands New York: John Wiley
- 
1991 'Mega Events aod therf Legacies " Pp '15 8'7 itt QuuLry Managehtent in Urban Tour'
ir'!, edited by P E Murphy New York: iohn Wiley
Hall,CM.,aodJ Hodges i996 "The Party s Great, ButWhataboulthe Hangover? The Housing
and Social lmpac6 oi Mega Events wrlh Special Refer€nce to lhe 2000 Sydney Olymprcs "
Felnval llanageme and Event Taurtsm: An intenlational Journat 4t 13'20
Hall. C-M.. and J.M Jenkins 1995 Touri""m and Public Poli.] New York: Routledge
HannigaD,JA 1995 'The Post'Modern Ciryi ANew Urbanizatiot"l" Cune So.:ioLog\' 43 t55'2t4
Hughes, H L 1993 'Oiympic Tor.ism and Urban R€generatron Fesrinl Managente and Eretlt
Tourii t An l\ematiowL lournal 1: )51 162.
Jacobs,J 196l The Death atrd Lik tJGteal Anwican Ciue! New York: Random House
Jennings, A 1996 The New Loids of rlrc Ringr London: Silnon and Schuster
Jeong, G , and B Faulkner 1996 'R€sident PercEpuons ofMega'Event Impacls: The Taejon Inrema-
uonal Exposr0on Case Fe\tival Managente a'1d Err TaurilnL At1 Intenlatrcnal Jounal
4: 3-Ll
Jukes,P 1990 A Shout i,t the Steet The l,lademC)a London: Faber
Kang, YS,andR Perdue 1994 'Long Term Impact ofa Mega-Event on lntemrtional Tourism ro
the Host Counfy " Jolrnal of Internarionol Can:umer lt4arket)ng 6:245-225
Kantor, P, H.V. Savirch, and SV Haddock 1997 "Th€ Polirical Economy of Urban Regimes A
Comparalive Perspecfive " Urban Affans Revie\9 )2:348-l'71
Keams, C, 
^nd C Philo I99l Selling Places The Cia ax Cullural Cap al, Pa and PiesenrOxfo.d, UK: Persamon
Kidd, B 1992. 'The ToronLo Olympic Conurutment: Towards a Social Contracr for the Olympic
Games " Oltnpika Tlrc ltrenlatiotlal Jounal oJ OLtntpiL Studies I: 154-161.
KotLer, P , D H Haider, and l- Rei,n 1993 hlarketng Places: ArnLLrrat Int'esmen, Induslry, a d
Tourirn to Cities, States, and Nanot$ NEw Yorki Free Press
Law, C. 1993 U.banTourien Loodon: Mansell
Lefebvre, H i99t The Producuon oJ Spacd Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Ley,D.1996.The Nev,Middle CLats atrd rc Remaking ofthe CetlrrcLCirj Oxford, UK: Oxford Uru-
versrty Press
Ley, D , and K Olds 1988 "Lardscape as SpectacLe: World's Fairs and lhe CultLrre of Heroic Con-
swprion ' Envionmen and Plannin! D Soctery andSpace6:191-212
Lonand, LH. t998 The PubLic Real,t: Eryloring the Ciry'! ALinessenrial So.iaL Ten ory New
York: de Cruyter
Logan, JR, and H.L. Molotch 1987 Urba" Forune!: The PoLniuL Econonry ol Place Betkeley,
CA: Universiry Of Califomra Press
Logan,JR.,RB Whaiey, and K Crowder 199? "The Character and Consequences of Growth
Regimes: AnAssessmentofTwenfyYearsofResearch'UrbanAffarlReriew32:603-630
Lynch, P G , and R C Jensen 1984 The Econoruc Impac!of lhe Xll Com..nonwerlth Games on the
Brisbane Resion " Utbar PoLicy and Re\earc|12: t1-14.
Macrntosb, D, and M. Haw€s 1992 "Th€ IOC and the Wodd of Interdepeidetce " OLynpika l:29-
Mules. T 1993 'A Special Ev€nt as Parr oi an Ufban Renewal Strategy " Fe:invaL l4anagetnetlt and
ErentTourLsht: An InrernamnaL Jounlal l:65 6'l
Mules,T,andS l\4cDonald 1994'TheEconomrclmpactofSpecral Events:The Us€ of Forecasts
FestivaL Managenent and Eeent Tornlnr An lnlelnatnnaL Journal2: 45-53
Mullrns,P l99l "Tounsm Urbanrzatron lnternatirvi JawnaL al U tbatr and Rtgia^al Research 15
326-341
Mumford, L 196l The Ciry in Hisrca New York: Harcoun. Brac€. and Wodd-
Nixon,HL i988 "The Background, Nature, and lmplicanons of the Organizatron of tle CapLtalist
Olymprcs h 231 251 in The Canrcr TraNkioa. Ediled by J O Seagrav€ and D Cbu
Champargn. ILr Human Kjnetics Books
Olds, K 1998 'Urbar Mega-Events, Evrcrons. and Housing Rights: The Canadian Case Crrznr
lssue! in Tou.i!n I:1-46
Paddison, R 1991 'Ciry Marketing, Image ReconstrucLion aDd Urban REgneraoon " Utban Studie!
30 33 9,350
Ritchre, J R B l984 "Assessing lhe lmpacLs ol HalLnark Events: Conceptual and Research lssues
J'urMt ofTrawl Research 23 2 iI
Harvey, D 1989 The Conditton of Poshtoderniry Oxford, UK: Dlackwell
Hiller,HH lgSg "lmpactandlmage:TheConvergenceOiUrbrnFactorslnPrepanngforlhel98S
Caigary Winter Olymprcs " Pp I l9-lll tI.'T!ft Plannhs antt Evdtuamn af Hallntark Eve
edrtedbyGJ Syme,BJ Sbaw.DM Fenton,andWS Mueller Aldershot, UKr Aveburv
- 
1990 "The Urban Transforma on of a Landma.k Ev€nt: The 1988 Calgarv winler Olym
pics " Utban AlJhn! QuarterLJ26t lt8-13'7
1995 Corrvenlons ai Mega-Events: A New Model for Convenlion-Host City Relation-
sh;ps " Toilri:m Maiatenent 16.115-379.lggT "And lf Cape Town Loses: Mega Events and th€ Olymprc Candidartne" I dLI akr'
So h Aftica 14.63-67
1998 'Assessrng the Impact ofMega-EvenLs: A Linkage Model " Current lstue: inTourisn) 41-51
Fonhcomrng "M€ga'Events, Urban Boostensm, and Growth Strategres An Analysrs oithe
ObJecuves and Legrumauons of the Cape Town 2004 Olymprc Brd " ,rrPr,n unl Julrnal ol
Urbdtr antl RegratlaL Resear(t1
Hiller. H H, and D Moyhn 1999 'Mega-Events and Cornmunity Obsolescence Redevelopment
VersusRehnbilrtaoonrnVrclorLaParkEast'CarradianlatrnaiofUrbanRelear.h8:41'81
Hornr, J , and A Olmsred 1989 Popular Fesuvitres duflng the 1988 WinterOlymprc Camesl Olvm-
Drc Prn Tradrnp WDtld Letlure and Retrea on3l 3214
Toward an lJ,bdn Socology of Megd.f!ents
Ritchie, J R B, and B H Smith l99l "The Impacrofa Mega-Evenr on Host R€gion Awareness: A
Longitudinal Study " Jokrnal ofTratlrl Reierrch 30 3-10
Roche, M 1992 "Me8a-Evenrs and Micro ModemisaLionr OD the Socrology of the New Urban Tour-
ism " B'ilirh Jo rnal ofSociology 41 5$-6A0.
245
Rosentraub. M S., and P Helmke 1996 "Locarion Theory, a Growtb Coalirion, and a Regime in the
Dev€Lopmeni ofa Medi|dm Sized Ciry " Ufian Afans Suarterly3l: 482-501
Rosenkaub, M S , D. Swindell, M Przybylski, and D.R Mullins 1994 "Spon and Downtown De.!el-
opment Sratesy " Jorrlal of Urban Affan! l6:221 239
Rutherser, C 1996. I nqineerinq A ann: nre Polnic\ oJ Place ii lhe Cirt oJ Dredr New York:
1994 'Mega-Llenrs and Urban Policy Aiadk rtToutisn, Revatch )1: l-lt).
199? "Making Plac€ in e Non-Place Urban Realm: Norcs on the Revrtalizalion ofDown-
California Press
1995 The Culture aJ Cirie.r Oxford, uK: Blackwell
town Allanta.' Utban Anthrcpology 26.9 42.
Sassen, S l99l The Global Ctt Princeton, NJr Princeton Unlversity Press.
Schini.'nel, K.S l995 "GrowthPolitics,UrbanDevelopmenl,andSportsStadiumConstrucrioninthe
UDiied Shtes: A Case Study " Pp III 155ir.The Stadtumandha Cirr, edited byJ Bale and
O Moen KeelE: Keele University Press.
Schultis, J D, M E. lohnson, and G D Twynam 1996 "D€veloping a Long'tudinal Research Pro
Sram lo Measure ImpacB of a Special Eve " Ferriral Management and Event Touristn An
t t1t e ntat)o)laI I ournal 4: 59,66
Simmons, D C., and L Urquharr. 1994 "Measuflng Economic Effects: An Example of Endurance
Sport Events." Ferlildl Maiagenrt and EventTourim. An lnrcnarional Jountal2:25-32
Sorkfn, M. 1992 Variaiont on a Theme Pa* The Neu, Anrcican Citj and the End oJ Publi. Space.
New York: Noonday Press.
Sou!h Africa, Central StatisticalService 1996 BuLletin OfStotistics 30t 3
S[one, C 1993 'Urban Regimes and the Capacity ro Covem: A Poliricai Economy Approach " Jou.-
nol oJ Urban Afrail s t5 t-29
Uysal,M, andR Girelson l994 "Assessmenr of Economic lmpacts: Festivals and SpecialEvents "
Fevival Manaqenent and Eve Tou \n2:3-9
Walton, J 1993 "Urban Sociolo8yi The Conribuhons and Limirs of Polirical Ecorc'J,y." Annual
Reieu, oJso.ioto|y 19 3Ol 320
Wamsley, K B and M.K Ileine 1996 'Tradirion, Modemity, and the Constructjon ofCivic ldeDtiry:
The Calgary Olyrnprcs " Olympika: The lnternationol Jotrnal of Ollnpi. Slrdie.t 5r 81-90
WhjLson, D , and D MaciDtosh 1996 "The Global Circus Inr€mational Sport, Tou.ism aDd the Mar-
kering Of Cities " Jolrnal of Spo and Social Issues23 2'18 295
Whyte, William H 1980 lhe So.nl L{e of Small Arban Spocet Washitrgton, DCi Conservarotr
Foundation
Zukin, S l99I lAndscapes o.f Power: Fron Deto n Dilnet lyorld Berkeley, CAr Universit, Of