Mega-Event: Urban Duality

  • Niloufar Vadiati
Part of the Mega Event Planning book series (MEGAEP)


When it comes to Mega-event and urban planning, the main question is whether hosting a ‘hallmark event’ is a ‘chance’ or a ‘disaster’ for cities. A careful examination also reveals a growing and genuine concern among host cities seeking to reconcile the economic lure of Mega-events with popular local priorities of sustainability and social development. Thus, in order to thoroughly understand this debate, first we should dismantle the main advantages (catalysing the urban development, economic growth, image improvement) and disadvantages (gentrification, pricing-out and displacing) of hosting these events for cities and citizens. The literature on ‘planning by hosting a spectacle’ suggests that the Games are increasingly neoliberal in their consequences for host cities; however, they can also play as a high-profile platform for marginalised communities to raise their voice and gain political power.


Neoliberal urbanism Urban spectacle Place promotion Private sector 


  1. Black, D. (2007). The symbolic politics of sport mega-events: 2010 in comparative perspective. Politikon: South African Journal of Political Studies, 34(3), pp. 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boykoff, J. (2014). Activism and the Olympics: dissent at the games in Vancouver and London. Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, T., and Hamnett, C. (2007). The geography of education: introduction. Urban Studies, 44(7), pp. 1161–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Castells, M. (1997). Power of identity: the information age: economy, society, and culture. Blackwell Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, P., and Watt, P. (2017). London 2012 and the post-Olympics City. Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Cornelissen, S. (2010). The geopolitics of global aspiration: sport mega-events and emerging powers. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 27(16–18), pp. 3008–3025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cottle, E. (ed.) (2011). South Africa’s World Cup: a legacy for whom? Scottsville, South Africa: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.Google Scholar
  8. Eisinger, P. (2000). The politics of bread and circuses: building the city for the visitor class. Urban Affairs Review, 35(3), pp. 316–333.Google Scholar
  9. Essex, S., and Chalkley, B. (1998). Olympic games: catalyst of urban change. Leisure Studies, 17(3), pp. 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Over budget, over time, over and over again: managing major projects. In: P. Morris, J. Pinto and J. Söderlund (eds.), The Oxford handbook of project management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gaffney, C. (2010) Mega-events and socio-spatial dynamics in Rio de Janeiro, 1919–2016. Journal of Latin American Geography, 9(1), pp. 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gold, J. R., and Gold, M. M. (2008). Olympic cities: regeneration, city rebranding and changing urban agendas. Geography Compass, 2(1), pp. 300–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gornostaeva, G. (2011). The Olympics’ employment and skills legacy: a literature review. University of Greenwich, Work and Employment Research Unit.Google Scholar
  14. Grabher, G., and Thiel, J. (2015). Perspectives in metropolitan research I.: self-induced shocks: mega-projects and urban development. Jovis Verlag GmbH.Google Scholar
  15. Gratton, C., et al. (2005). The economics of sport tourism at major sports events, pp. 233–247.
  16. Gruneau, R., and Horne, J. (2015). Mega-events and globalization: capital and spectacle in a changing world order. Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Hall, C. M. (1992). Hallmark tourist events: impacts, management and planning. Belhaven Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hall, C. M. (2006). Urban entrepreneurship, corporate interests and sports mega-events: the thin policies of competitiveness within the hard outcomes of neoliberalism. The Sociological Review, 54(2_suppl), pp. 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hayes, G., and Horne, J. (2011). Sustainable development, shock and awe? London 2012 and civil society. Sociology, 45(5), pp. 749–764. Scholar
  20. Hiller, H. H. (2000). Mega-events, urban boosterism and growth strategies: an analysis of the objectives and legitimations of the Cape Town 2004 Olympic Bid. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(2), pp. 449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hiller, H. H. (2006). Post-event outcomes and the post-modern turn: the Olympics and urban transformations. European Sport Management Quarterly, 6(4), pp. 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Horne, J., and Manzenreiter, W. (2006). An introduction to the sociology of sports mega-events. The Sociological Review, 54(2_suppl), pp. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Horne, J. (2007). The four ‘knowns’ of sports mega events. Leisure Studies, 26(1), pp. 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ibert, O. (2015). Out of control? Urban mega-projects between two types of rationality: decision and action rationality. In: Self-induced shocks: mega-projects and urban development. Berlin: Jovis, pp. 31–49.Google Scholar
  25. Kassens-Noor, E. (2012). Planning Olympic legacies: transport dreams and urban realities. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Müller, M. (2015). The mega-event syndrome: why so much goes wrong in mega-event planning and what to do about it. Journal of the American Planning Association, 81(1), pp. 6–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nauright, J. (2004). Global games: culture, political economy and sport in the globalised world of the 21st century. Third World Quarterly, 25(7), pp. 1325–1336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2011). Game on, mega-event infrastructure opportunities. [online]. Retrieved August 26, 2015, from
  29. Raco, M. (2014). Delivering flagship projects in an era of regulatory capitalism: state-led privatization and the London Olympics 2012. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(1), pp. 176–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roche, M. (2002). Megaevents and modernity: Olympics and expos in the growth of global culture. Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Shin, H. B., and Li, B. (2013). Whose games? The costs of being “Olympic citizens” in Beijing. Environment and Urbanization, 25(2), pp. 559–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thiel, J., and Grabher, G. (2015). Crossing boundaries: exploring the London Olympics 2012 as a field-configuring event. Industry and Innovation, 22(3), pp. 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vanwynsberghe, R., Surborg, B., and Wyly, E. (2013). When the games come to town: neoliberalism, mega-events and social inclusion in the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(6), pp. 2074–2093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vigor, A., et al. (2004). After the gold rush: a sustainable Olympics for London. IPPR.Google Scholar
  35. Watt, P., and Bernstock, P. (2017). Legacy for whom? Housing in post-Olympic East London. In: London 2012 and the post-Olympics city. Springer, pp. 91–138.Google Scholar
  36. Wills, J. (2013). London’s Olympics in 2012: the good, the bad and an organising opportunity. Political Geography, 34, pp. A1–A3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niloufar Vadiati
    • 1
  1. 1.HafenCity University HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations