LOOK INSIDE: Expos as Great Urban Projects

Foreword

Sarah M. Whiting

On May 27, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent a “message to the fair” to mark the opening of the Century of Progress International Exposition being held in Chicago, Illinois, which he had not been able to attend in person: “I welcome the celebration you are now beginning,” Roosevelt wrote. “It is timely not only because it marks a century of accomplishment, but it comes at a time when the world needs nothing so much as a better mutual understanding of the peoples of the earth.”

With this short message, FDR captured the crux and the challenge of world expos: they are at once very local and very global. Chicago’s hundredth year fell in 1933, a time when the city—and the world—was already four years deep into a global economic depression. While the 1933 expo did not solve the world’s fiscal woes, it did point forward with hope—its motto was “Science Finds, Industry Applies, Man Adapts,” and its exhibitions were filled with technological wonders. The fair had a direct and lasting impact on the city; built mostly on landfill, it expanded Chicago eastward into Lake Michigan’s waters.

Expos are as temporally as they are geographically elastic: just as they extend from the local to the global, they also capture the contemporary while always extending into the future. As large insertions into or next to their host cities, they also become instant and complete urban districts. Expos have extended cities’ boundaries through landfill; they have introduced new transit systems; and they have created long-lasting tourist attractions. Unlike Olympic villages, which focus mostly on housing and athletic venues, the urbanism of the Expos is decidedly public—there is as much attention to access, circulation, and public spaces and amenities, as there is to trade shows and spectacles.

As these two extraordinary volumes demonstrate, there have been over 500 fairs, exhibitions, expositions (the terminology itself is a topic of study here) since 1851, the year of the first, the Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations, known to all architects as the Crystal Palace Exhibition. While several exhibitions are quite well known, there has never been a study of their urban impact. Until now.

The value of these two volumes is impossible to exaggerate: they offer up exquisite documentation of the qualitative and quantitative bearings of these expos upon their specific urban contexts and upon our urban thinking more broadly. They meticulously document the histories, the planning, the architectures, the innovations, the compositions, the atmospheres, the landscapes, the wonders, the processes, and the stories of these ephemeral events that, despite their temporality, always leave long-lasting legacies. A bound cabinet of delights, this study offers up an encyclopedia of rich information and sheer visual pleasure, capturing the value of the expositions that have happened and providing lessons for those to come.

Sarah M. Whiting Dean and Josep Lluís Sert Professor of Architecture Harvard University Graduate School of Design

Foreword

Dimitri S. Kerkentzes

As mirrors of their time, expos have always served to reflect evolving priorities and worldviews, all while anticipating a future shaped by technological progress. By looking at these mega-events—past, present, and future—it is possible to gain a better understanding of the world. Their planning, their content, the innovations they showcase, the monuments they leave behind; all of these aspects of an expo provide valuable information about the direction the world is going, the concerns of humankind, and aspirations for the future. As multifaceted projects that are conceived and created by a multitude of different actors, expos offer a rich and complex picture of what its creators want to show, what they want to see, and where they want to go next.

As sites where ideas come to life, expos are testing grounds for inspiring and creating new modes of building, living, traveling, working, learning, and having fun. In this way, they serve as laboratories for conceiving new types of spatial organization, new types of structure, new paradigms for urban living. They constitute powerful catalysts of renewal, creating new neighborhoods and public spaces, spurring local development, and initiating new forms of urban dynamism.

Through their planning, their execution, and their experience, expos interact closely with their host cities, existing simultaneously as an integral part of the urban fabric and as an experimental new environment offering alternative visions of reality. Their impact is seen and felt long after their gates close, not only in the physical changes brought on by the event itself, but also by their intangible footprint on the quality of life, and on the expectations and attitudes of the host city and its citizens. Gathering hundreds of countries from around the world, expos transform through the experiences they offer, the ideas they generate, and the influence they drive, shaping the geography and identity of their host cities for decades to come.

From the Great Exhibition of 1851 to the more recent Expo 2020 in Dubai, expos have served as strategic instruments for urban transformation. This function can be clearly traced from past to present, with each new International Exhibition redefining what an expo is, while also bringing new ideas of urbanism to the fore and making their mark—physical, cultural, and intellectual—on the world.

Over the years, the physical format and spatial extent of expos have evolved, sometimes anticipating and sometimes mirroring changes within cities themselves. From the singular structure of the Crystal Palace at Expo 1851 in London, expo sites have grown larger and more varied, always featuring modern technologies, new aesthetics, social and environmental forms of architecture, and putting in place the infrastructure necessary to welcome millions of visitors.

Historically, expos have contributed not only to transforming and building the urban landscape of some of the world’s greatest cities, but they have also stimulated overall changes in the understanding and conception of what cities are and of the use and development of public space in general. Paris, Vienna, Chicago, New York, Brussels, and Shanghai are just some of the world cities that have been shaped by their experience of hosting world expos, with their expo-related transformations serving as inspirations for countless other urban projects.

The nature of expos—as large-scale and high-visibility events drawing millions of visitors—makes them unique opportunities for cities to plan for the future, as they constitute unrivaled projects for urbanistic innovation and singularity. The temporality of these events—as ephemeral stages for the world to gather—makes them a canvas to prepare for the transitory and to strategically support long-term change. In their planning and organization, expos are an innovative cornerstone of the

individuality, centrality, and multifunctionality required of their host cities, and leave evolutionary landmarks upon which the future of the city can be built. They drive urban changes for sustainable development, regeneration, investment, and forward-looking citizen-focused policies, and spur new developments and bold ideas. The type of development varies for each city. From urban regeneration to extension, each expo is a singular project in which multiple strategic choices coalesce. The result leads to a profound transformation inspired by and responding to the needs and vision of the host city and its citizens.

With unprecedented urban development picking up pace across the world, cities occupy the center stage of discussions on quality of life and opportunities for future growth. The urban setting, environmental conditions, access to health and social care, leisure, economic opportunities, and the cultural offering are all aspects that define life in cities, that determine well-being, and that set cities apart from each other. As urban centers grow, so does trade, travel, cultural exchange, and global competition, raising questions over the future direction and identity of each city. Planners and policymakers play a key role in defining and managing this direction and this identity, imagining the urban experience of tomorrow, and creating the conditions for lasting transformation.

Behind the development of cities lies a number of pressures and contradictory forces that must be weighed up by elected officials and citizens themselves. Where there is growth, there is consumption; where there is speed, there is exhaustion; where there is development, there is the risk of degradation. In an era where continuous, everlasting expansion is no longer possible nor desirable, urban planning decisions must balance the potential benefits and opportunities of growth and development with the financial, environmental, and social costs that may result if they are not planned with the future in mind.

Similarly, where resources, facilities, and dynamism are lacking, the cost of inaction cannot be ignored; cities must constantly evolve and keep pace if they are to thrive in a globalized world. The strategy to be defined—gradual or rapid, top-down or consensual, organic or accelerated—inevitably takes into account all factors and notably the long-term needs of the city.

In choosing to organize an expo, cities express their long-term plans and vision as part of a greater strategy. As a project, hosting an expo engages civil society, governments, and companies in shaping the future and the immediate environment. It is an endeavor that facilitates changes, and it is a means to transform, create, and differentiate. These changes—whether immediate, medium-term, or long-term—come in different forms, and reflect a combination of careful planning alongside evolutions in the city’s urban, political, social, and economic fabric.

The impact of an expo is thus manifold, with dozens of fields involved in its preparation and organization, from diplomacy and mega-event management to tourism, site design, and urban planning. At the level of the host city, this creates new expertise and gives rise to increased potential for the city and its citizens. Furthermore, organizing an expo transforms the fabric of the city itself. Mega-events require significant (re)development, with major investments to improve infrastructure and ensure a seamless experience for organizers, participants, and visitors alike. Public transport, hotel capacity, and telecommunications are just some of the infrastructural aspects of the host city that will grow—permanently—with the hosting of an expo.

For the Bureau International des Expositions (BIE), the impact and urban footprint of expos is of resolute importance. From the conception of the project, an expo must be based on the needs and aspirations of the city and its people. While their time scale is limited in terms

of the opening period, expos are projects that set in motion longterm transformations. They serve as a bridge from one era to another, giving the host city a singular opportunity to action change in terms of infrastructure, mobility, culture and leisure, and urban layout. They also—depending on each city’s needs—involve the regeneration or reattribution of whole districts, the rebranding of the city or region, and the reconfiguration of a whole range of operational systems. The scale and costs of the tangible and intangible transformations undertaken before, during, and after the expo call for careful consideration of the strategies to be followed at all stages in the journey.

It is this preoccupation with the planning of an expo legacy that has led the BIE to work alongside Professor Joan Busquets and his team in this thorough research project focusing on the urbanistic impact of expos. Since 2018, BIE officials, including myself, have collaborated closely with Professor Busquets and his colleagues from the Harvard University Graduate School of Design to move this project forward, with the aim of better understanding the urban impact of past events, and analyzing the capacity of expos to transform and shape new forms of urban development. This work looks at the actual, measurable impact of expos on their host cities in terms of physical changes, design, and architecture, as well as the wider themes of urbanism that are raised in the process of planning and organizing an expo.

The outcome of this extensive research, presented in these two volumes, is of great value and interest not only to the BIE, but also to researchers, urban planners, and expo candidate and organizing committees. By collecting and presenting data relating to the urban impact of expos, and comparing them in a single publication, this research project provides us with a useful and thought-provoking exploration of the urbanistic innovations stemming from expos and their always-evolving impact on city life.

This collaborative project, which builds on a body of existing research, presents a detailed and illuminating survey of the different ways that expos have led to urban transformations. Recognizing the individuality and unique context of each expo, it manages to draw parallels, observe trends, and better understand the historical trajectory of these events alongside social, economic, and political changes. This cataloging and referencing allows for further discussion on the very nature of expos— past, present, and future—and how best practices and lessons learned can shape a vision for future expos to maximize their positive and lasting influence on the urban environment.

Expos are characterized by their temporality—the event itself takes place for a limited duration of no more than three or six months. The research presented by Professor Busquets and his colleagues demonstrates, however, that these large-scale endeavors are by no means short-term projects that pass with time. On the contrary, the numerous examples studied show that they are lasting in character and belong to the realm of era-defining projects for their host cities. They highlight that it is of utmost importance to ensure that this lasting impact is as positive and as effective as possible in improving the city and the living standards of citizens.

As expos continue to evolve and shape cities, it is essential that practitioners and researchers continue to advance and anticipate the pressing questions to come. The findings of this research will inspire the hosts of future expos and will guide the BIE in its role as the intergovernmental organization that supervises the organization of these transformational events. For the cities and citizens of tomorrow, expos offer the chance to boldly experiment with new, inclusive, and sustainable urban ideals. With continued research, reflection, and action, these ideals can emerge sooner and be shared with the greatest number.

Dimitri S. Kerkentzes Secretary General of the Bureau International des Expositions (BIE)

Introduction: Understanding Expos

This study is about the design process of a specific type of megaevent, the world expo, and its urbanistic consequences in the midterm. It may serve to offer a new approach not just to expos, but also to designing and planning cities with a large program and the desire for transformation.

World expos are well known as extraordinary events that give cities importance and bring them to public notice. However, expo projects have not been taken as the subject of substantial debate about their capacity to be decisive in the future development of a territory in terms of design features, as this research shows. The goal is not to go over the many existing scholarly analyses of political or economic global outcomes that have been published; works by M. Roche, T. Bennet, P. Greenhalgh, R. Rydell, J. E. Findling, K. D. Pelle, N. Gwinn, J. MacKenzie, W. Friebe, D. Raizman, E. Robey, A. Geppert, J. Coffey, T. Lau, and M. Filipová are acknowledged in the bibliography and make our work feasible.

The aim of this investigation is to study multiple scales in order to identify the way these events have acted on their urban or rural context and make a clear connection between different models, jumping between geographical regions and even time periods.

Cities and Expos

Global competition and collaboration in cities in the form of big events are seen as an effective strategy for transforming and creating new conditions for urban developments. In the contemporary era of globalization, cities compete directly with one another on the global stage to attract investment, talent, and tourism. For this reason, cities use different means to outdo one another, such as adapting approaches that have been successful for other cities, strengthening their own branding, and seeking other ways to stand out. Using various tactics, cities construct unique identities and burnish their brands by constructing spectacular architecture and hosting international events such as the Olympics, the FIFA World Cup, World Expos, or the World Design Capital.

However, cities have realized the financial risk that these events entail and now plan to use them to catalyze long-term urban transformation, typically through substantial infrastructural improvements. For example, in very different ways, both Expo 2010 Shanghai and the 2012 London Olympics were planned to have a lasting impact on the respective cities’ development long after the events ended. Cities tend to design what

they aim to be afterward and then produce a smart spatial structure that is spectacularly used during the big event. Afterward, normal city development will come into operation.

Research on Expos

This project sets out to understand the expo phenomenon throughout its long period of existence, from 1851 until the present day, in terms of the physical nature of its implantation and its impact on the city. The phenomenon has had a major influence on the urbanization process undertaken by our society, and its evolution will, therefore, reflect long-term social and economic changes. We also focus on the material conditions of its development, which calls for attention to its conception, construction, and subsequent transformation.

The Evolution of the Expo as a Mass Phenomenon

The expo was based on a new need of the industrial system to increase trade, taking as its reference special or commemorative manifestations organized in many cities for festive or ritual reasons. Open-air spaces like the Maidan in Persian and Indian culture, the Plaine de Plainpalais in Geneva, and the trade fairs of so many other cities were empty urban places, transformed for short periods of time into concentrations of exceptional activity, attracting throngs of visitors.

We might say that the expo is a necessity of our times. According to the works of Giulio Carlo Argan, formal squares and great urban avenues were the defining elements of European cities, following the principles outlined by the Baroque. The capital city concentrates decisions and power, as Lewis Mumford explains, linking it to the ideology of power that generalizes the baroque mentality of organizing space to produce a continuum, embracing extremely different elements. The centralization of power called for the creation of the capital city.

Meanwhile, the development of industrialization called for an increase in trade and established competition between regions and countries. The expo was at the origin of the desire to extend the free market, and experimentation created the basis for this innovation. The opening of the 1851 Great Exhibition included the words: “The creations of Art and Industry are not the privilege of a single nation; they belong to the whole world. The exhibition must be international.”

The development of industrialization and artistic dissemination formed the basis of the expo until 1930, when image and communication took over. New technologies and their critical review have continued to offer new episodes up until the present day.

Expos as Urban Projects

The investigation will explore the urban impact of a phenomenon that was originally ephemeral but went on to become the driving force of direct or induced manufacturing of large urban sectors of our cities. Although transitory, this urban project had such a major social influence that it became evolutionary and influenced urban development. Hence the interest in defining it as a new genre or type of urban project, and comparing it with other forms that have a program and the ambition to produce permanent, definitive urban development. This genre has gradually changed to become, in most cases, a project that adapts to different development conditions: initially an expo, then later one more urban piece of the city of which it forms part, as we will see in detail in the second volume.

The future of the expo was occasionally questioned. Back at its beginnings, Frédéric le Play, a social thinker and great figure of the Paris Expo of 1867, proclaimed that the future of the universal exposition (dealing with all human activities, production, art, ways of life, etc.) involved leaving the city and becoming a permanent exhibition, a general museum displaying all the products of labor and becoming a continuous supermarket of culture, just like the Beaubourg-type museum in the same city was to be in the next century.

However, it is important to bear in mind that the museum tends by definition to sacralize art and turn it into a permanent value, whereas the expo is temporary and, as such, begins with a selection of what is most relevant to each moment and ends when it closes.

Because each expo has its ambition, its logic, and its legacy, this research project sets out to highlight its spatial organization, urban forms, and architectural and landscape gambits, as well as the different styles and culture of design, but above all, its influence on its urban context.

This is, then, an extraordinarily diverse phenomenon due to the time of its creation. For this reason, the decision to compare and verify expos

as spaces that have made this transitory development possible may serve to distill what is imminent and constant as opposed to what is variable and more subject to the conditions of taste or aesthetics of each time. Ultimately, we can conclude that each expo has been a celebration, a source of information, and, above all, a way to formulate new questions.

The Expo: A Multifaceted Phenomenon

According to the semiotician Umberto Eco, when asked about the main dimensions of this great event on the occasion of Expo 1967 in Montreal, there are many answers, depending on how we look at the phenomenon: culturally, sociologically, or architecturally, and also on whether we approach its study visually, orally, or in writing. The expo is a phenomenon with many facets, and varied content and uses, so it is surely necessary to interpret it from many points of view. In “A Theory of Exposition,” Eco insists that, although the interpretations are different, they are complementary rather than contradictory.

It is this multifaceted dimension suggested by Eco that explains why the expo debate is so broad and diffuse, covering economics, politics, literature, and other arts.

Works by Walter Benjamin relating the capital status of Paris with its expos, or by Charles Baudelaire on his critical interpretation (Le beau est toujours bizarre) and the need for innovation in the early expos, are examples of how various disciplines overlap. In this sense, more recently, the assessments of philosophers like Manfredo Tafuri when evaluating expos as instruments for “creating the public domain” or Jurgen Habermas when interpreting their capacity to transform the “public sphere” are very relevant.

Social and Political Influences

World expos combine scientific, cultural, and commercial innovations; they attract cultured visitors and create moments of climax or momentum for the cities and their institutions. Innovative ideas and practical solutions began to be diffused by Baumeister, a German publication, in 1876, for example, but international conferences on planning issues were not formalized until 1910, so expositions were excellent platforms to showcase and discuss new experiences.

Innovative social advances also use expos to show off to the rest of the community. Workers’ delegations from various countries met in Paris in 1867 to debate the improvement of the difficult working conditions of the time, the Women’s Pavilion in Philadelphia in 1876 showcased the situation of women on the initiative of groups in favor of their liberation, and repeated calls were made for social housing; all are examples of the expo as a contested terrain or opportunity to visibilize political conflicts, as we will see in due course.

The expo allows visitors to discover other cultures, such as Orientalism or Japanism, or the unknown, such as the Street of Cairo—just some examples of many interesting aspects of the picturesque. But, in turn, the possibility of showcasing a country and its overseas regions served to mobilize a degree of nationalism with a strong political impact on relations and conflicts between countries.

Another noteworthy aspect is the evolution of the colonialism of nineteenth-century empires. The theme of the colonies was presented in Amsterdam 1883 as an instructive presentation of the values of the singular and different, and the idea reached its climax in Paris 1931, in the Bois de Vincennes, dedicated monographically to the theme of the colonies, to great public acclaim. It went on to be a critical and controversial issue in the decolonization process that became a central political issue for the major European powers after World War II.

Expos and Technological and Artistic Advances

Some of the main phases in the evolution of the expo can be explained by their importance to the industrial production of England as compared to France, which also competed, but with more emphasis on art and good taste, or what might be regarded as luxury products. It was a process of contrast between the two powers until the entry of Vienna in 1873, marking another direction, and particularly Philadelphia in 1876, celebrating the Centennial of Independence. This was the introduction of the United States as a new player in the debate, followed by Chicago 1893 and St. Louis 1904, creating a new commercial scale. The three great traditions (the International Exhibition in Britain, the Exposition Universelle in Paris, and the World’s Fair in the United States) were then created, and were to continue until after World War II.

The lure of these events created an interest in the production that dazzled visitors and attracted the media of the time. Soon, they became

places for the dissemination of culture (painting, sculpture, furniture, etc.). They were also places of entertainment and fun. Indeed, in 1900, the multiple experiences of Paris Expos led to the conclusion that, to be successful, they had to be aimed at the general public, hence titanic efforts to recreate the Trans-Siberian Express and the Mareorama, or create the “wow” effect of infinite space by the specular reflection of images, which we will explain in due course. This is how the power of attraction of an expo is measured. But in order to stay, the general public has to be entertained, and this was a new component in the last century.

After World War II came three expos on three different continents: Brussels, Montreal, and Osaka. This was a period in which reverence for technology was a dominant trend: new forms of expo were produced, with new traditions in their makeup.

Here, postmodernism as an attitude began to dominate the selection of themes and artistic stances, giving way to a more critical view of forms of industry and seeking to reduce their impact by means of the environmental and ecological alternatives that the expos of the early twenty-first century are calling for.

The Expo as Image of the Future City

An intrinsic value of the expo has always been the desire to show what is happening—in production, trade, and art—but from the viewpoint of anticipation, looking ahead to offer creative visions of the immediate future. This suggests the constant concern with explaining the present in pedagogical terms and, at the same time, creating potential images of the way the future is shaping up. In this sense, the study can bring us closer to understanding the concepts and theory of the project behind the making of an expo, taking into account its physical and material characteristics, but above all, seeking to understand the idea or the thinking that organizes and articulates the spatial structure and the arrangement of the elements. To achieve this aim, the research project takes different scales of approach and methodological strategies.

This first volume addresses the main aspects of the phenomenon since the mid-nineteenth century, seeking to understand its impact and geographical condition. The idea is to see the most general factors as though observing these phenomena from the outside, as pieces built in a relatively short time but producing clearly identifiable urban sectors.

Volume 1 in Three Chapters

From an urban planning perspective, and by means of qualitative and quantitative analyses, Volume 1 provides a systematic review of the various aspects of organizing and preparing world expos. It is structured in three main chapters. The first two address large historical changes in the culture and evolution of the expo and the key factors and main urbanistic variables of the expo project, with each aspect extensively covered and discussed under subheadings. The third chapter sequentially presents a catalog of 54 selected cases, grouped into five different time periods. Below is a detailed summary.

Chapter 1: Large Historical Changes

The study identifies cultures, themes, and types of expositions since 1851. In order to understand their urbanistic impact, the broader practice of cities hosting them is studied, identifying innovative projects and traditions that exist outside the major world expos. One hundred cases are selected for further analysis, defining the research field for subsequent projects. The geolocations of these 100 expos and their 70 host cities are mapped, exploring the procedure of transformation from European innovation to globally celebrated tradition. The world expo has long acted latently as a global technological and cultural battleground, indicating the important role of the host city in the global network. In this sense, the expo has marked the growth of cities, regions, and even nations, from the competition between Paris and London and the empires of France and Britain in the nineteenth century to the participation of an increasing number of American and European cities and the emergence of Asian cities in the late twentieth century.

Chapter 2: Key Factors and Main Urbanistic Variables

Research analyses that reflect the evolving global cultural milieu and critical urbanistic features are organized into six subchapters:

2.1 Understanding the Qualitative Values of Past Expos

The first subchapter presents statistical and categorical data on different aspects of the expos’ spatial characteristics. The empirical method of factor analysis is applied to multiple items to investigate correlations

that may explain some expo design outcomes. A theoretical mathematical model reveals how different variables are correlated; some are logical, others unexpected.

2.2 Locating the Expo in the City

The sites of the 100 expos are categorized from a city-centric perspective into three types: inside the city, outside the city, and at the city periphery, also known as peri-urban. The identification of expo locations and research on preparatory work by the organizers and designers prior to the event allow us to further explore and interpret different urbanistic considerations when setting expos within the wider framework of the urban development or remodeling of host cities. Examples include considering a large urban park system as a crucial component, catalyzing a city’s urban extension, regenerating a critical city center fragment, reclaiming land for development, and creating a new town for decentralization.

The 53 cities that have hosted a single, large expo as a one-off event are compared to the 17 that have hosted a succession of multiple expos over the past 170 years. For these “expo cities,” this chapter discusses two contrasting or opposing approaches: to continue hosting expos in the same area or on adjacent sites in order to create urban spectacle and a go-to district in the city over the long term, or to host expos in different locations according to the city’s needs during different periods as a way of extending its urban footprint. The reasons and conditions that suggest an inclination toward a single- or multi-site approach, or a combined approach, are then explored.

2.3 Accessing the Expo

One of an expo’s top priorities is to ensure accessibility for a mass public arriving from many locations, using different means of transport. The main mode of accessing expos changed from the railway in the beginning to highways by the mid-twentieth century, reflecting a paradigm change in city fabric from a city on a railway line to a city on wheels. Nevertheless, it is necessary for the host city to build a robust infrastructure network that includes air, ground, and water transport to ensure easy access to the event for domestic and international visitors of different means and backgrounds. Preparing the expo is a unique

opportunity for host cities to improve, update, or even reorganize their transport networks.

2.4 Sizing the Expo in the City

Does a big city require a larger expo? When is an expo too large for a particular city? Are expos getting bigger as major cities expand? This subchapter investigates the size of the expo and examines whether there is a correlation with the host city’s scale of urbanization. The thresholds determining extra-large, large, medium, small, and extrasmall expos are established at 200, 100, 50, and 25 hectares, respectively, with the ticketed areas of most BIE world expos determined to be in the large category, with an average surface area of 273 hectares.

2.5 Configuring the Spatiality of the Expo Site

The fifth subchapter investigates the site conditions of 100 expos and reviews different patterns of spatiality, a condition closely connected to the site’s relationship to waterbodies and urban infrastructure corridors, sometimes incorporated into the expo as critical spatial elements. The study identifies five different approaches: a single consolidated site insulated from its surroundings, a single consolidated site integrated into its surroundings, sites joined across urban gaps or barriers, sites linked by expo transport, and sites distributed or networked throughout the city, with several expos including one or more annexes.

2.6 Considering the Functional

Legacy of the Expo

The legacy of an expo has to be carefully considered before the event and adjusted during the postexpo period as different needs emerge. Understanding the importance of the expo’s functional legacy, this subchapter reviews the contemporary function of 100 expo sites and identifies seven main postexpo conditions: urban park, new waterfront, institutional or business campus, exhibition center, cultural district, residential neighborhood, urban subcenter, and landmark district. Different philosophies—providing permanent buildings as a contribution to the city form as opposed to creating an open cultural platform with temporary experimental elements, or promoting urban expansion rather than catalyzing urban reconfiguration—inspire different postexpo plans, resulting in a variety of functional legacies.

Chapter 3: Interpreting Expos in the Urban Context

The third chapter sets out to understand what the expos are like “on the inside,” presenting a complete catalog of 54 expos to see to what extent they are similar or respond to different paradigms. Here, the method of representation allows us to understand the ideas—concepts or principles that are sometimes rather abstract and difficult to express—and priorities of each project and, above all, provides an extraordinary systematic comparative base. Precise drawings offer clearer, more communicable systems of comprehension: axonometrics, critical sections of a panorama, and multiple diagrams are presented as guided interpretations of the values and conditions of each expo.

The main contribution of this chapter is perhaps its description of expos using a graphic method that facilitates a comprehensive comparative understanding of each international event. Selected expos are presented in a reverse chronological order, ranging from Osaka 2025 to London 1851, and grouped into five time periods that describe the cultural and political evolution of society and that may indicate clear morphological changes. The catalog offers a powerful graphic database for future research and alternative hypotheses.

The second volume uses the information collected in the first in order to view the expo as an urban project: describing its compositional and spatial conditions, as well as its innovative components, deciphering its qualities, and proposing lessons from this vast but dispersed experience that may contribute to making it more and more socially interesting.

Joan Busquets

Martin Bucksbaum Professor in Practice of Urban Planning and Design Harvard University Graduate School of Design

Large Historical Changes

Defining Expo Types

In the 1979 publication A History of Building Types, Nicolas Pevsner identifies the exhibition hall as a new building typology that emerged from the Industrial Revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The present research intends to build on this analysis by exploring not only the single building but the exposition campus and its related initiatives as a distinct genre of urban project that has had a decisive impact on design discourse and on the urban development of hundreds of cities and territories worldwide.

In the interest of understanding past and potential urbanistic impacts of cities hosting expositions, the present research takes a broad view to consider expositions of all types, paying particular attention to the events formally regulated within the framework of the BIE but looking beyond these to find larger patterns and special episodes. Many innovations in exposition design and corresponding impacts in urban planning and design have been driven not only through the legacy of major world expositions but also through numerous smaller or more specialized expositions that have been held since the mid-eighteenth century. We have so far identified over 500 cases of expositions that have demonstrated an urban impact in their host city since the Great Exhibition of 1851, although there are undoubtedly more that could be considered. From this survey, over 240 cities may be identified in which expos have factored to varied degrees in their respective urban histories, ranging from events with light footprints to others that have significantly contributed to their urban evolution.

The survey is organized by six general types of expositions: BIE-registered world expositions, BIE-recognized specialized expositions, international-scale expositions, national- and regional-scale expositions, colonial and intercolonial expositions, and special expos that lie outside those recognized by the BIE. Although not included in this survey of over 500 cases, various “lateral” expositions, including horticultural expositions, arts expositions, and smaller housing exhibitions, have contributed significant impacts on host cities as well and are mapped in relation to the subject of this research on the timeline on page 43.

BIE World Expos

The 35 expos of this type include world expositions organized under the framework of the BIE beginning with the Brussels world exposition in 1935, as well as 21 world expositions that were organized prior to the BIE and identified as significant in retrospect, spanning from the 1851

Great Exhibition in London to the 1933–34 Chicago World’s Fair. The type spans the initial designation of first- and second-category world expositions that existed prior to the adoption of new rules in 1980 that created only one type of world exposition. Today’s world expositions are held at regular five-year intervals, can last up to six months, are not limited in size, participants can build their own pavilions, and the theme of the expo has to be of universal concern. The most recent world expos have been largely dominated by the building type of the national pavilions, anchored by key thematic and supportive structures.

BIE Specialized Expos

The practice of hosting BIE-recognized specialized expositions dedicated to specific themes dates back to the 1930s as well. The first two specialized expositions were held in Helsinki and Stockholm on the theme of aviation, and a total of 34 have been held to the present day. Perhaps the most direct prototype of today’s specialized expositions was the third and largest of the pre-war specialized expositions, held in Liège in 1939 on the theme The Art of Water, where contrasting national representations were intentionally suppressed for the purpose of elucidating a common theme, and exhibits were mostly contained in standardized exposition buildings following a cohesive design. The specialized expo type proved adaptable in the rebuilding process following the Second World War, with smaller specialized expos taking place at a greater frequency through the 1950s following the 1948 protocol of the BIE, in many cases taking advantage of existing or rebuilt exhibition facilities and joining with outside initiatives such as that of the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) in Turin 1955, the Bomässa tradition in Helsingborg H55, and the IBA in Berlin’s Interbau 1957. The first significant, purpose-built exposition site in the postwar period opened in Turin in 1961 on the theme of labor, and from the late 1960s through the early 1990s, specialized expositions became the dominant type of BIE expo, functioning as small-scale world expos that were capable of being hosted by mid-sized cities.

Today’s specialized expositions have benefited from a greater regularity since the BIE amendments of 1982 came into effect: under current regulations, specialized expos take place at five-year increments, occurring between world expos. Site areas are limited to 25 hectares, durations to three months, and host countries are required to provide participants with an interior space within dedicated facilities, ensuring the organization costs for hosts and participants are relatively limited.

The specificity of the theme in specialized expos has taken on greater importance as well: the three most recent expos were dedicated to the themes Water and Sustainable Development in 2008, The Living Ocean and Coast in 2012, and Future Energy in 2017.

International-Scale Expos

The international-scale type applies to all remaining expositions of an international or universal scope since 1851 that were not considered as one of the 21 most historically significant cases that occurred prior to 1935 in the literature of the BIE, as well as those that have occurred since 1935 but were organized outside the framework of the BIE, most notably the 1964–65 New York World’s Fair. Many of these expos held significant commercial components and were driven in large part by private initiative, with several cases having a profound impact on the development and visibility of the host city and surrounding economic region. This category includes events that aspired to be universal but did not reach that scale, as well as multinational expositions, or international expositions that intentionally focused on partnerships and collaboration across specific geographical regions, such as the Baltic or Nordic expositions from the 1860s through 1910s, the Franco-British exposition and similar bi-national themed events in London’s White City from 1908 to 1914, and the continental America Fair in Mendoza in 1954.

National- and Regional-Scale Expos

Expos at the national and regional scales include expositions that were conceived as significant national events, often creating a forum for the representation of different states or provinces or contributing to the formation of a national identity amid the creation of modern nationstates. These can be one-time events, coinciding with a centennial or other important date, or they may occur on a regular cycle ranging from annual exhibits to once-in-a-generation events. This category of the survey also includes a wider scope of expositions initiated not by national entities but by host cities that aspired toward national or regional participation. The history of the national exposition type is long and varied across different exposition cultures. These events include series of national expositions initially held in France in the first half of the nineteenth century; in Russia; in the Netherlands and later Belgium; in the Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont and later throughout Italy amid Italian Unification; in Poland, Romania, Hungary, the Baltic

states, and other emerging nation-states in Eastern Europe in the early twentieth century; in coordinated regional expositions in Czechoslovakia from 1927 to 1931, which introduced modern architecture and social programs to different parts of the country; in Great Britain through the Empire exhibitions and Festival of Britain in 1951; in Meijiera Japan; and in various countries across Latin America. The only regularly occurring national exposition that remains active today is the Swiss national exposition, which since 1883 has been held on roughly a 25-year interval, most recently in 2002.

Colonial and Intercolonial Expos

The display and participation of colonies in largely European world expositions was common in the nineteenth century and through the decolonization processes of the twentieth century. In this sense, Tony Bennett argues that these early expos were a place where control was linked to the dominant ideology of the state power, with contrived racial hierarchies shaped by the views of eugenics in early anthropology reflected in the programs and spatial layouts of exhibitions and entertainment zones. These included the Village Nègre on the Esplanade des Invalides of Paris 1889, home to more than 400 indigenous peoples, intended to add legitimacy to the French colonial project, and the massive Philippines exhibit at St. Louis 1904, home to more than 1,000 Filipinos and occurring only six years after colonization by the United States, to name only two examples.55

Although the theme of colonization was pervasive across expos, this particular type refers specifically to those expos that were oriented primarily between an empire and a colony, between multiple colonies of a single empire, or expos framed entirely around the theme of colonization and trade and involving multiple participating countries and respective colonies, with the latter two examples also known as intercolonial expos. The first major European expo held on the theme of colonization took place in Amsterdam in 1883, in the form of the International Colonial and Export Exhibition on the Museumplein. Large intercolonial expositions hosted in European nations attracted great attention, including the British Empire Exhibition held at Wembley outside London in 1924 and colonial expositions held in Paris in the Bois des Vincennes in 1907 and 1931 and in Marseille at Parc Chanot in 1906 and 1922. In the case of some former colonies in Africa, South Asia, Oceania, and the Caribbean, certain colonial exposition projects marked significant moments in the urban development process of the

Understanding Quantitative Values of Past Expos

Given the global character, broad content, and rich history of expos, there can be an overwhelming number of aspects to consider when addressing the topic, even via the specific perspective of planning and design. In an effort to define a clear rationale to the research, we begin by exploring the “elements,” more precisely the “factors,” that are associated with the decisions of the expo project at a larger scale. The target for this data-driven factorial analysis is to discover the correlations among these most crucial factors for planning and designing a great expo.

Thirty-nine potentially influential factors about the expos are explored via a quantitative method: year, host city population, number of participating countries, duration of the event, expo visitors, paid admissions, expo campus construction cost, ticket price, ticket income, urbanization area of host city, measured expo campus area, green space area, building footprint area, waterbody area, infrastructure area, distance from city center to expo campus, distance to primary rail station, distance to airport, expo perimeter length, water perimeter, existing infrastructure length, new infrastructure length, new water routes length, inner main circulation distance, transit length, number of entry gates, number of transit methods, spatial configuration type, waterfront type, the functional legacy of the expo campus, city ranking,1 expo ranking,2 expo location type, host city population density, expo campus area to city area ratio, green space ratio, expo visitor intensity, open space ratio, and building coverage.3

The survey across the 100 selected expos constitutes a complete dataset for each type of factor. It results in a matrix of 39 datasets (Figure 1), which becomes the database for statistical exploration in search of the relationships among key factors in describing and understanding an expo. The full matrix contains three types of datasets: the first includes the “numerical variables,” which cover 27 factors in total; the second includes the “categorical variables” of six sets, within which the two datasets of city ranking and expo type factors are special categorical variables that can be used as numerical variables because their enumeration also represents hierarchical influence; and the third includes “density variables” of six sets.

These datasets are collected and generated through three major methods. The first is through a review of records stored in a variety of physical and digital archives, including books, reports, and catalogs stored in the library of the BIE; publications and records stored in the collections of the Harvard University libraries; data made available on

Figure 1 (Above): The categorization of 39 key factors in preparing and planning for an expo, according to the character of its individually contained dataset.

the website of the BIE; as well as data compiled through a study of world expos by the organization JDP Econ.4 The second is through the measurement of the digital models that we created for the purposes of research and representation at both the scale of the expo campus and at the scale of the metropolitan area of the hosting city. The third

5 Aerial view of the International Exhibition of Modern Decorative and Industrial Arts held in Paris in 1925, facing north. The compact site spans the Jardins des Champs-Élysées and Esplanade des Invalides either side of Pont Alexandre III. Four linear entrance galleries are positioned between existing blocks of trees on the esplanade, forming a spatial continuity between the expo site and the regular urban street grid of the immediate context.

6 Aerial view facing east over the sites of Expo 1967 in Montreal, Québec, with the cruciform tower of Place Ville Marie and Old Montreal in the foreground and the South Shore across the Saint Lawrence River in the background.

7 Aerial view over Specialized Expo 1984 in New Orleans, facing north. Located along the Mississippi River adjacent to the Central Business District and French Quarter, the central site location contributed to the revitalization of the neighboring Warehouse District and allowed a direct engagement with the river.

Invalides to the Grand Palais; and Paris 1937 recovered the full site of the 1900 expo and extended it to include the new Palais de Tokyo, the Île aux Cygnes, and several blocks adjacent to the Champ de Mars. Other expos that adopted a similar strategy include Bordeaux 1907 in the centrally located Place des Quinconces, the site of a series of previous exhibitions, including one in 1885; Cologne 1928 in Rheinpark facing the city center, extending the site of the 1914 Werkbund Exhibition; Johannesburg 1936–37 in Milner Park, site of previous agricultural Rand Shows; and New York 1964–65, recycling the site of the 1939–40 world expo in Flushing Meadows.

Four cases involve the reclamation of land along urban waterfronts, with the intention of providing new developable areas and parks for the city center in the postexpo period: Rio de Janeiro 1922, designed as a promenade overlooking extensive land reclamations south of the city center; Chicago 1933, in the form of a 5-kilometer strip of waterfront including the newly constructed Northerly Island, following Daniel Burnham’s Plan of Chicago; Port-au-Prince 1949; and Montreal 1967, enlarging Île Sainte-Hélène, creating the artificial Île Notre-Dame, and lengthening and enlarging the Mackay Pier to became the Cité du Havre.

Eleven cases demonstrate the urban regeneration of a previously underdeveloped site located inside or adjacent to the host city center. After the Second World War, a new pattern of urban regeneration emerged whereby expos were held in war-torn sectors adjacent to city centers, first demonstrated in London 1951 in the regeneration of the South Bank and later in Berlin 1957 in the rebuilding of the Hansaviertel with modern housing. This approach became especially evident in the “world’s fairs” in the North American context beginning in the early 1960s. In this period of federally funded urban renewal in the United States, cities often regarded expos as important components of their urban redevelopment schemes. Examples include Seattle 1962, creating the potential for a new civic center immediately northwest of the central business district, recalling the 1911 Bogue Plan; San Antonio 1968, located adjacent to the city center in a historic neighborhood formerly known as Germantown that was subjected to clearance; Spokane 1974, located on former railyards and industrial areas across Canada Island, Havermale Island, and the adjacent south bank of the Spokane River; Knoxville 1982, located on the Louisville and Nashville Railyards and depot; and New Orleans 1984, which regenerated an area of port-related railyards and warehouses in pursuit of recapturing “the beauty and attractiveness” of the central business district and the natural scenic setting. This approach of locating expos on former

industrial lands near city centers surged amid the postindustrial urban waterfront restructurings since the late 1980s, including Vancouver 1986 on the former CPR Railyards; Brisbane 1988 on an industrial area facing the central business district (CBD); Genoa 1992, recovering and bringing new qualities to the Porto Antico harbor area; and more recently the largest expo in history, Shanghai 2010, which has propelled the city’s largest urban redevelopment project across sites of former heavy industry extending south along both banks of the Huangpu River.

Outside the City

A third approach is seen in expos that are located a far distance from the “host city” and that involve more consideration of metropolitan or regional development plans or the issue of urban decentralization. Ten cases follow this model: Nizhny Novgorod 1896 was a large temporary campus located to the west of the Oka River and outside the city’s urban boundary, preferencing the side of the Nizhny Novgorod Fair and, critically, sited along the railway line arriving from Moscow; Lyon 1914 was located in the Gerland area to the southeast of the city on a permanent campus conceived as a modern, hygienic new city model, planned by Tony Garnier with the support of Lyon mayor Édouard Herriot; London 1924 was intended to support the development of “Wembley Park,” an existing urban destination and recreational center for London; San Francisco 1939–40, located on the purpose-built Treasure Island midway along the Bay Bridge to Oakland, was intended to become an airport for the growing bay-area metropolis; and the unrealized Rome 1942 was planned to take place in the Esposizione Universale Roma (EUR), a new town designed to direct the expansion of the city toward the southwest and the sea, and to become a new city center for Rome. This model is frequently seen in Japanese expos with the clear aim of supporting specialized, or functional, new town-making: Osaka 1970 was planned to further promote the development of Senri New Town, the largest postwar residential satellite town in Osaka initiated in the early 1960s; Tsukuba 1985 was intended to stimulate the construction of Tsukuba Science City, a planned city focused on technology north of Tokyo in the 1960s; and Aichi 2005 aimed to accelerate the sustainable development and urban transformation of Nagakute around the automobile industry— centered at the Toyota research and development labs established in 1960—as another subcenter of metropolitan Nagoya. Okinawa 1975 is yet another Japanese case that chose a distant site and constructed an international expo in a previously remote and underdeveloped

8 Photomontage of an aerial photo of Rome, Italy, facing southwest toward the sea. A model view of the proposed EUR (the Universal Exposition of Rome planned for 1942) along Via Imperiale is superimposed at top left, and a proposal for the new airport across the Tiber River in Magliana is demarcated at top right. The EUR was planned as a new urban centrality detached from the existing city, positioned midway between Rome and Ostia on the Tyrrhenian Sea.

9 Aerial view toward the remote site of Expo 1975–76 in Okinawa, Japan, facing north from the small town of Tancha, with the superstructure of the Aquapolis visible offshore at top left. Located on the Motobu Peninsula in the island’s northeast, the expo was connected by highway and ferry to the main city of Naha, located approximately 75 kilometers away, and benefited from its natural seafront condition with scenic views.

rural area, a similar but more political idea as it was intended to be a manifesto for the Ryukyu Islands’ bright urban future within its new Japanese sovereignty.

A contrasting approach is demonstrated in the case of the Swiss National Exposition in Pays des Trois-Lacs 2002, which was distributed across the lakefronts of the four towns of Neuchâtel, Yverdon-les-Bains, Morat/Murten, and Biel/Bienne, and outside of any single large city. The expo was planned with the primary consideration of making an ephemeral event that would be largely removed after the expo and benefited from a well-developed regional transit system.

planned to take advantage of the city’s extensive new development and its position within the Greater Tokyo Area, with significant civic facilities and transportation systems, allowing the successful accommodation of over 20 million visitors. The expo raised the reputation of Tsukuba and further stimulated its urbanization, contributing to the decentralization of research functions to Tokyo’s outskirts. Knoxville was a relatively small regional city when it hosted the International Energy Exposition of 1982, following a precedent set by Spokane 10 years earlier. The specialized expo became a defining moment in Knoxville’s history, bringing direction and purpose for urban development at a time of economic recession. Two world expos that stand out with high city intensities are Seville and Hannover, both of which required large investments and structural upgrades to transit infrastructure and various facilities prior to hosting Expo 1992 and Expo 2000, respectively.

The second plot relates city intensity to city scale, recovering the five city types identified in Chapter 1. The reading of expo type and site size, indicated by the area of the circles, reiterates the general notion that larger-scale cities have a higher capacity to accommodate expos with greater visitor numbers. More importantly, the plot shows that city intensity is negatively correlated to city scale, something that is especially evident in the case of specialized expos. On average, smaller-scale cities (county-level and regional cities) have had to contend with significantly higher city intensity factors.

By introducing the site intensity and city intensity indexes, the planning and design of a proper expo site could find a more rational and controlled path. Even though this study does not intend to set a formula for area requirements, the reference data provided may be useful when sizing future expos and improving the comparative understanding of past projects.

The study concludes with a retrospective view of the relationship between city growth and changes in the size of expos held in multiexpo cities. The question posed is, as cities have grown, have the expo projects they have hosted had a corresponding growth in overall project area? In order to find an answer, a diagram is composed: the x-axis indicates the size of the expo, and the y-axis indicates the size of the city. For this comparison, the overall project area (development area) is used in place of the expo site area (ticketed area), and the urban footprint area, as measured at the time of the event, is used as the measure of city size.

This method is then applied to the survey of 100 expos. Out of these, 17 “multiexpo cities” hosted a total of 47 expos. From the 31 expos that repeated in these multiexpo cities, 17 expos increased in size as the city grew, indicated by a blue area circle, compared to 9 expos that decreased in size as the city grew, indicated by a red area circle. The additional 53 expos hosted in “single-expo cities” are indicated in gray area circles. A positive correlation in subsequent expos is displayed as a blue line, and a negative correlation is displayed as a blue-to-red line. These contrasting correlations may be demonstrated through two examples, Brussels and San Francisco. The expos that Brussels hosted in 1897, 1910, 1935, and 1958 consistently increased in project area as the urban footprint of the city expanded chronologically. In contrast, the second expo held in San Francisco in 1939 was smaller in project area than the expo it previously hosted in 1915, despite a significant expansion in the area of the urban footprint in this timespan.

A positive correlation between increases in the size of the hosting city and the sizes of subsequent expos may be expected, as the expansion of the urbanization area and the corresponding increase in population through time allow for a greater capacity of the city to accommodate a larger expo site and related urban developments. We may expect this positive correlation to also be influenced by the increase in size of the service and development areas associated with expos. The one-third of cases with a negative correlation are responding to a number of factors, including a change in expo type, a change in site location from the periphery to the city center, or a change in the spatial requirements of an expo across different time periods, among many others. As mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, the determination of the expo site size is not only an abstract exercise but one that must also consider the definition, spatiality, and landscape conditions of a particular site, a topic further investigated in the following chapter.

CHICAGO 1933–34

NEW YORK 1939–40

SAN FRANCISCO 1939–40

DALLAS 1936–37

1930

1938

GOTHENBURG 1923 ANTWERP 1930

LONDON 1924–25

1935

PARIS 1937 1925

BARCELONA 1929–30

LISBON 1940

LIEGE 1939 1930

1928

1939 BRNO 1928

1942

1940

SEVILLE 1929–30

INTERWAR PERIOD OF CULTURAL EXCHANGE (1919–1945)

DE JANEIRO 1922

JOHANNESBURG 1936–37

Expo 2020 is conceived as a compact model city demonstrating a new potential form of urbanism for the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the greater region, as well as the core of a future urban district and innovation hub known as District 2020. It is the first world expo to be hosted in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia region, and it is situated in the region’s largest financial and communications center, Dubai. The project has provided an economic stimulus and strategic focal point for development in the UAE since its designation in 2013, and with a budget of over $18 billion, it represents the largest investment in a world expo event to date. Due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, the event was rescheduled to take place from October 2021 through March 2022 but retained its original name.1

The expo is located on a previously undeveloped peripheral site approximately 37 kilometers southwest of Dubai’s historic center, Deira. It is situated in the northwest corner of Dubai South, a large planned economic zone centered on the Al Maktoum International Airport that is currently under development, and adjacent to Dubai Investments Park, Jebel Ali Free Zone, and the Jebel Ali Seaport. Access to the expo is primarily by metro, via the Route 2020 extension of the Dubai Metro Red Line to the new internal Expo 2020 station, and by private automobile, taxi, or dedicated Expo Rider bus service via the E77 and E311 Sheikh Mohammad Bin Zayed highways. The overall site is bound by these highways and landscaped buffered zones of 300- and 400-meter-width to the north and west, respectively, and undeveloped land reserved for support and logistics extends to the south and east.2

The 500-hectare project site is subdivided into three general areas: a 168-hectare ticketed expo area, organized on a radial grid centered on the ceremonial Al Wasl dome and plaza; a service area, which wraps the perimeter of the ticketed area with extensive parking and other services; and the expo village and mall area, located on the main axis across from the Expo 2020 metro station. The edge of the ticketed expo area is defined by a primary arterial road and metro corridor to the west and by a perimeter-access roadway loop on all other sides. This perimeter condition is bridged at the cardinal mid-points to define four entrances: one primary entrance leading from the metro station in the west, the others from bus, shuttle, and helipad nodes via three monumental latticework gateways and entry gardens designed by the British architect and designer Asif Kahn.

The composition of the dedicated expo area is organized on a radial grid design reminiscent of a flower, with three radial “petals,” two radial parks located between the petals, and a primary east-to-west axis connecting the expo village, metro station, and exhibition center to the central Al Wasl Plaza. Offset from the 150-meter-diameter central plaza is a circular Loop Boulevard measuring 284 meters in radius, connecting the three petals and two parks at their mid-points and providing a cross-section of thematic content. This radial organization improves circulation—limiting the walk from any entrance gate to the central plaza to just 700 meters, roughly 300 meters shorter than the Champ de Mars in Paris—and also eases the site’s translation into a virtual environment for Expo 2020’s online component.

The programmatic definition of the site closely follows its radial spatial composition. A total of five general zones with unique morphologies and programs may be identified: the central core, the three petals, the two parks, the perimeter band of pavilions, and the main axis of large special programs, including the expo village, metro station, and exhibition center. At the center, Al Wasl Plaza introduces a new typology of covered exterior public space to Dubai. The plaza is surrounded by five administrative and hotel towers of between 10 and 13 stories and is enclosed by a

1 (Previous) Aerial view over Dubai Expo 2020, from above the Sustainability District facing west toward Al Wasl Plaza, with the Expo Village visible in the background.

2 Night view toward the domed Al Wasl Plaza, centerpiece of Expo 2020, from the direction of the Mobility District and Jubilee Park. The plaza introduces a new form of outdoor public space that integrates nature and technology, transitioning from a shaded garden during the day to become an immersive event space in the evenings. The dome functions as an icon as well, with the ring pattern of the structural trellis—based on a Bronze Age ring discovered at the Saruq Al Hadid archaeological site—repeated in the logo for Expo 2020.

Initial masterplan: HOK with Populous & Arup

Masterplan development: AECOM with Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture

Open space design:

SWA Group (Al Wasl Garden, Main Entry Plaza, Loop Boulevard, Jubilee & Al Forsan Parks, Oasis, Gavath Trail), Asif Khan (Entry Portals, Arrival Buildings & Courtyards, Garden in the Sky Tower, Public Realm Design), Werner Sobek (Shade Structures)

Contributors:

AS+GG (Al Wasl Plaza), Foster + Partners (Mobility Pavilion), Grimshaw Architects (Sustainability Pavilion), AGi Architects (Opportunity Pavilion), Santiago Calatrava (UAE Pavilion, Qatar), Woods Bagot (Dubai Exhibition Centre), Hopkins Architects (Thematic Districts), WOHA (Singapore Pavilion), Christian Kerez (Bahrain), LAVA (Germany), Sergei Tchoban/SPEECH (Russia), MMBB Arquitetos, Ben-Avid, & JPG. ARQ (Brazil), V8 Architects (Netherlands), Es Devlin (UK), Bureau Proberts (Australia), JKMM (Finland), Yuko Nagayama (Japan), Moon Hoon with Mooyuki Architects (South Korea), Boris Micka (Saudi Arabia), Amann-Cánovas-Maruri (Spain), OOS (Switzerland), Assar/Vincent Callebaut (Belgium), Ciarán O’Connor (Ireland), Querkraft (Austria), Nascimento, Toso, Acuto (Angola), Simmetrico (Azerbaijan), Pacheco Arquitectura (Colombia), Oualalou + Choi (Morocco), Perez Prado, Celnikier & Grabli (France), Metaform (Luxembourg), WXCA (Poland), Ripellino, Gardère & Pardo (Sweden), Shift Process Practice (Iran), Marco Pestalozza (Kuwait), Hazem Hamada (Egypt), Robert Klun & Sandi Pirš (Slovenia), A3 Architects (Serbia), Rintala Eggertsson (Norway), Hijjas (Malaysia), RAW-NYC (Iraq), Carlo Ratti, et al. (Italy), Budji+Royal (Philippines), CP Kukreja (India), Moriyama & Teshima (Canada), S+A (Portugal)

exhibit on Future Astana at the top level, where extensive city views are afforded, before proceeding down six levels that each contain a specific energy-themed exhibit: Energy of Space, Solar Energy, Wind Energy, Biomass Energy, Kinetic Energy, and Water Energy. At the base level is the Pavilion of Kazakhstan, a Creative Energy zone, and an access plaza where visitors may walk under the sphere and view activity from below. Surrounding the sphere and connected by roof form are three additional commercial pavilions within the interior ring street, together composing a central cluster

at the core of the expo. The use of the landmark pavilion to concentrate thematic exhibits and showcase active building systems was an effective strategy to communicate the theme of Future Energy. The schematic design of a glazed sphere was perhaps an odd choice for a climate that can range in temperature from 35°C in the summers to -35°C in the winters, one that was only made possible through the thermally insulating and glare-reducing properties of the glazing system and a canvas that was applied across the west half of the sphere for the duration of the expo.

5 View within the shaded walkway surrounding the lobby and flexible exhibition space below the Nur Alem Pavilion.

6 The Latin America Plaza in the outer ring of pavilions for international participants, with façades communicating the subtopics contained within. The tall two-story exhibit spaces were converted into four-story commercial spaces in the postexpo phase.

7 Interior view of an atrium within the Nur Alem pavilion, with the tiered terraces dedicated to different sources of energy and a glass walkway extending from the top level above.

8 View from the north of the Expo Boulevard toward one of the outer International Pavilions at left, with the Energy Best Practices Pavilion at right.

9 Night view toward the Nur Alem Pavilion from the direction of the Mega Silkway Shopping and Entertainment Center in the west, with the Art Center at right and Commercial Pavilions beyond. The fabric covering was a temporary measure to reduce glare.

10 Night view of the illuminated diagrid of the Nur Alem Pavilion, designed by Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill Architecture.

11 One of four open-air pavilions designed by Sergey Nebotov, each of which address different themes along the circular Expo Boulevard. This pavilion is located in the Wind Energy Zone.

12 View facing north from the nor th entry plaza through Expo Park. The landscape corridor connects the expo site to the Astana Ballet Theater on the north–south metropolitan axis.

Opposite above: N–S section facing east, showing the radial distribution of the core elements of the expo as well as the vertical organization of the central thematic palace, where the displays of each level were dedicated to a different source of energy.

4 | Primary Structures Section

3 | Supporting Structures

2 | Landscape Structure

Urban Legacy: Expo City, Astana

The legacy of Expo 2017 can be understood in terms of the model urbanism it presented to a national and global audience during the event, as well as the physical and programmatic legacy of the site itself and its relationship to the metropolitan plan. The development of the greater 174-hectare site benefits from its spatial relation to adjoining complexes: the campus of Nazarbayev University to the west, a new complex of hospitals to the south, the Kazakh National Academy of Choreography to the north on the metropolitan axis, and beyond this the 100-hectare Astana Botanical Garden and adjoining complex of national-scale sports stadiums and arenas. An elevated light rail line, the Astana Metro, is under construction along the north–south Qabanbay Batyr, which connects the site to Astana’s center, while residential development has continued to fill in remaining spaces to the north and east of the greater site.

The built form of the expo campus has been largely retained in the postexpo phase with new programs introduced to the site. In accordance with the postexpo plan, major expo buildings have seen a change in use, transforming the site into an office and research park anchored by the Astana International Finance Centre (AIFC) and some government institutions, with the intention of attracting international companies and entrepreneurs from the private sector. The central Kazakhstan Pavilion, Nur-Alem, reopened to the public two months after the close of the expo as a science museum: the Museum of the Future. Most of the other key buildings from the expo—the international pavilions that surround the Nur-Alem sphere, the Logistics Center, Communications Center, Organizer’s Office, Police Station, Congress Office, Congress Hotel, Congress Center, and the Mega Silkway Shopping and Entertainment Center—have been retained in their postexpo condition.

Soon after the removal of temporary pavilions and event spaces, a new landscape plan was implemented in the space between Nur-Alem and the Congress Center, with the entire site reopening within a year of the expo. A large Arts Center that was planned to be located on this axis, a key cultural component for the postexpo legacy phase, remains unrealized. In a later phase of development, parking and service zones along the south of the expo site are to be converted to residential neighborhoods, following the pattern of the blocks in the northwest.

In the legacy sense of a model city, the expo complex demonstrates the integration of a range of new building and city management technologies at the scale of an urban fragment or mega-block. Features include over 1,000 Wi-Fi access points; a smart grid system for electrical supply; a smart lighting project utilizing LED lights with motion sensors; and, following the expo theme, a novel system of local power generation that includes the aforementioned wind and solar generation integrated into the Nur-Alem Pavilion, as well as a solar plant in the south parking area that generates electricity for the international pavilion complex.6 This local energy system remains an important feature in the postexpo phase.

The commission of the entire project to a single architecture office has allowed for an efficient design and construction process, and a postexpo vision of the site was a key factor in the expo design. Consequently, though, the project appears as “big architecture” that may lack the necessary flexibility in the long term, with architectural innovation largely concentrated in the single landmark structure at the center of the complex, the Nur-Alem Pavilion, and little opportunity in the masterplan for the site to accommodate future additions with a contrasting or pluralistic style or approach. The greatest legacy impact of the expo project in the long term may be found in its success at creating a new pedestrian-friendly, sustainable, and programmatically rich urban centrality in the metropolitan structure of Astana. This is especially relevant as the roles of the airport and new railway station grow, the metro is eventually realized, and the open-space structure of parks, ecologically important but threatened wetlands, and the urban perimeter of forested windbreaks are strengthened.

13 Aerial view of Expo City,

facing southeast in 2021, with temporary pavilions removed from the expo campus and housing development completed in the northwest quadrant of the expo masterplan. The Astana International Airport is visible at top right, beyond the green belt designed as both a lung and a windbreak in what can be a harsh steppe environment.

14 Night

1 (Previous) Urbe massima, Armando Brasini’s proposal from 1917 for the arrangement of the Flaminio area on a monumental axis extending north from near Piazza del Popolo along Via Flaminia and across the Tiber.

2 (Previous) View of the Monument to Victor Emmanuel II, or Vittoriano, on Piazza Venezia, inaugurated in 1911 and completed by Brasini in 1935, facing southeast, with the recently opened Via dei Fori Imperiali extending beyond to the Colosseum. Photo from 1938.

3 (Previous) First floor plan and section through the main courtyard of the Palace of Justice, or Palazzaccio, located on the Tiber near Castel Sant’Angelo, designed by Guglielmo Calderini and opened on the occassion of the 1911 International Exposition of Art.

4 (Previous) View over Città Universitaria, 1935, the urban project led by Piacentini for Rome’s La Sapienza campus. Facing southwest, Pagano’s rationalist Physics Institute building is at center right.

11 Plan of Via Imperiale and other routes connecting EUR to the historic center, showing three roads merging in a trident at Piazza del Lavoro just north of EUR. Governatorato di Roma, 1938–39. The center of these three roads will remain only partially realized.

12 Detailed development plan of Via Imperiale between EUR and the Aurelian Wall of Rome, Marcello Piacentini, 1939.

13 Map showing the relationship of the EUR to the historic center of Rome inside the Aurelian Walls, right, and Ostia and the Rome–Fiumicino International Airport on the coast, left, c. 1953. The main axis of the EUR, Via Cristoforo Colombo, connects from Castelfusano on the coast to near the Terme di Caracalla in Rome. The outline of Rome’s outer ring road planned after World War II, the Grande Raccordo Anulare or GRA, is visible beyond the city’s urban extensions.

In accordance with R. Mariani’s interpretation, E42 was planned in keeping with two clear principles: that when the expo ended, there would be a large, monumental district, marking development in the direction of Ostia, between Rome and the sea and that the expo would praise empire and romanità, classicism and monumentalism, according to the principles proposed by fascist ideology. Whereas New York 1939–40 had promoted the city of tomorrow and the idea of a “Democracity,” E42 had as its objective a new imperial Rome. The future could be seen in the Pavilion of the Future, but the exposition itself had a classical, monumental base.

Finally, the chosen location in the Tre Fontane valley, with a 400-hectare site, was a terrain of tuff, with steep slopes and pozzolana quarries, which had to be leveled using fairly primitive techniques to be able

to construct the expo, which, in the models, was presented with no important topographic features. This difficulty, added to the autarchic situation of the country, produced some rather difficult conditions for construction.

It was a modern undertaking in its form of development, though tightly controlled by fascist power and propaganda. Rome, meanwhile, as the capital, needed orderly modernization and expansion, as its extensive growth operations had been planned to extend the city’s old layout.

At E42, conversely, the composition of the project was clear and powerful, with a cross formed by the cardo and the decumanus, as though it were a colony of Rome rather than a reinterpretation of the imperial city. This regular organization has been maintained throughout the many interpretations of the Esposizione Universale Romana (EUR) project during decades of development and implementation. Superimposed on the central axis are two transversal ones: the first more urban, with its large piazza, and the other landscaped, with the lake organizing the more open spaces.

The idea of the urban project was that of Marcello Piacentini with a team of four collaborating architects, once again including Pagano, with Piccinato, Vietti, and Rossi. Competitions were organized for the buildings in the different periods.

It is worth noting the marked contrast between the ideas of Piacentini and his followers, who were in favor of a classical, monumental tradition, and the position of the younger generation of rationalist architects, favorable to modern architecture. In 1926 in Rassegna, the latter had formed Gruppo 7, including Libera, Terragni, Figini, and Polini, later giving rise to the MIAR in 1930. This rationalist current distanced itself from the futurism of Marinetti and Sant’Elia that was so important in Italy at the start of the twentieth century and sought to introduce modern architecture as the evolution of tradition. At Bardi’s art gallery in Rome in 1930, the rationalist group presented a show proposing that modern architecture could represent arte di stato, or state art. It was opened by Mussolini, but the followers of Piacentini and the more conservative architects immediately began actively to combat the stance of the rationalists and posited the stile littorio, or Roman style, and traditional Novecento as the third way to represent Italian architecture in the 1930s. It should be noted that E42 can be seen as 1) a large-scale urban project for the southward expansion of Rome, which, despite the vicissitudes that will be seen, managed to set a

14 Presentation drawing of the bird’s-eye view along the axis of E42 in the southerly direction, according to the first master plan of April 1937. Drawing probably by Luigi Vietti, March or April 1937.

15 Project proposal by Adalberto Libera for

the location of the monumental Arch, symbol of the Universal Exposition in Rome (E42), as a backdrop for the Via Imperiale, ca. 1938.

16 Topographic site map of the EUR prior to site works, showing a structure of ridges and valleys with streams oriented transverse to

the Tiber and the new axis of Via Imperiale.

17 First version of the masterplan for the E42 (EUR) by the team of Piacentini, 1937.

18 Second version of the masterplan, 1938.

19 Third version of the masterplan, 1939.

20 Illustrated promotional plan of E42, 1940,

reflecting the third masterplan of Piacenti.

21 View of the extensive earthworks that transformed the varied site, c. 1937.

22 The planting of trees and preparation of the ground below the partially constructed Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana, c. 1940.

Ephemeral and Lasting Landmarks of World Expos

In this postindustrial period, the expo has a different meaning and content, and above all addresses other considerations, such as transcultural, pedagogical, or recreational aspects. Furthermore, megaevents are subject to other types of rules and priorities when considered according to the logic of fandom (Rebecca Williams, 2020). The expo’s specific time conditions, varying program, and ephemeral condition continue to make it unique among megaevents.

Is the expo genre still valuable as a global event in today’s postindustrial society?

The research across these two volumes indicates that the future of expos as megaevents aligns with the capacity of these events when conceived as urbanistic resources to address future social and environmental demands.

By way of conclusion, we might say that expos today are not necessarily the dinosaurs of the past that Robert Rydell (2000) polemically maintains, but rather present-day phenomena, despite changes in their material circumstances and forms of repercussion.

Furthermore, it is important to remember that the evolution of the expo served to consolidate industrialization in the nineteenth century and its influence on forms of urbanization in the twentieth, and continued through postindustrialization to meet globalization as a trend in which debate is ongoing.

We have to recognize a cumulative process in the expo tradition that can be extended and adapted to the conditions of powerful digital communication, adding an essential physical component. Within this framework we can harness the ambition of the issues raised by this tradition that constantly aims to critically discuss the present in order to envision the future. It continues to be an ideal platform to address issues such as social equity, feeding the planet, and the sustainable world.

At the same time, it is important to highlight the creative impact of an adaptation of the sensorial effects that, according to Anna Klingmann (2007), can represent the choreography of unpredictability; spectacularity is difficult to foresee and must be built as a well-thought-out, innovative project.

We have also seen how the sequence of expos offers a creative platform for architecture, allowing the development of new styles and experiments. These efforts at demonstration create development opportunities for other private or corporate initiatives that emerge on the basis of these experiments.

We see a clear evolution in the expo from an element to show off—that is, for demonstration—in its initial period to a spin-off—a dynamic agent—for the city that hosts it in more recent times.

The creation of each expo has to emphasize the effort required in the process of decision-making and backing for such a complex, unique event, as well as the postexpo management, or legacy. This is the only way to take advantage of the positive impact produced by many of these experiences, which create new economic dynamics and put the city on the map of innovative metropolises.

A systematic presentation of expos serves to recognize the relevance of these big ephemeral projects with such potential for impacting the reality of our cities, but is also vital for the advancement of the many innovative efforts enabled by these initiatives.