The dark side of major events

Major sporting events are frequently seen as catalysts for development and opportunities to revitalise cities and regions. However, alongside this official narrative, there are critical issues that must be addressed, including economic costs, environmental impacts, and social consequences. We discussed these topics with Professor Manuel Orazi, who teaches a course on cities and regions at USI Academy of Architecture in Mendrisio. The article was produced in collaboration with laRegione.

Major events, particularly sporting events such as the upcoming Milano-Cortina Olympics, are hailed as moments of celebration, unity and spectacle, capable of attracting millions of people. However, behind the limelight lies a dark side: economic interests, exploitation, environmental impacts, and social tensions. Analysing these less visible aspects is essential to understanding the real cost of events, which, although sold as opportunities for development and the promotion of positive values, carry significant risks if not planned in a participatory and long-term manner.

Professor Orazi, major sporting events are presented as opportunities for urban and regional revitalisation. Is this really the case?

Until about forty years ago, major events like the Olympics and the World Cup were viewed as opportunities to modernise infrastructure, cities, and regions. This was particularly significant for developing countries, such as Italy, during that time. For instance, the 1960 Olympics in Rome played a crucial role in the city's modernisation. Consider the contributions of Pier Luigi Nervi, including sports venues, viaducts, and the Olympic village, which eventually transformed into a vibrant urban district.

So the overall outcome was positive?

In many cases, yes. Another virtuous example is Barcelona 1992: there, the big event was an opportunity for a comprehensive renewal of the city, involving some of the world's best architects. The works created at that time are still in use today and integrated into urban life. But this has not always been the case, especially as that model is not always replicable.

What has changed?

The economic, environmental and cultural context has changed. In particular, the Winter Olympics have become increasingly problematic. I would like to mention an edition that has almost been forgotten: Sarajevo 1984. Those Olympics took place shortly before the break-up of Yugoslavia and the civil war; today, most of those facilities are ruins, symbols of a devastated territory. Obviously, this is an extreme case, but it gives a good idea of the fragility of certain operations.

Today, the main issue seems to be sustainability...

Yes, especially in light of climate change: snow is becoming increasingly scarce, which poses challenges for many low-altitude facilities. It is no coincidence that there has been a rising international movement in recent years questioning the wisdom of investing substantial public resources in short-lived events, instead of directing them towards more beneficial long-term initiatives.

Does this criticism only concern the environment?

No, it also concerns the economic and social model behind these events. Large international sports organisations – I am thinking of the Olympic Committee, but above all, FIFA – have imposed an increasingly expensive and spectacular model. Tickets are prohibitively expensive, and sport becomes an experience reserved for the few. It has been calculated that an English spectator following their national team at the World Cup in the United States could spend tens of thousands of dollars on tickets alone.

A model that is very reminiscent of the American one...

In the United States, sports have become a significant media spectacle. Stadiums are designed like television studios, featuring large screens, music, lights, choreography, and entertainment before, during, and after the game. Some stadiums are fully enclosed and air-conditioned, even for sports that were traditionally played outdoors. The Super Bowl exemplifies this trend; in recent years, the cheapest ticket has exceeded £8,000.

What effect has all this had on sports architecture?

It has profoundly transformed facilities. On the one hand, there is growing integration with the media–screens, lights, technological devices – and on the other, the architecture itself becomes a spectacle. Think of some of the ski jumps designed by Zaha Hadid: iconic, highly recognisable shapes that are attractions in themselves. This is the opposite of post-war facilities, which were often prefabricated, sober, designed to keep costs down and ensure accessibility.

Prefabrication and standardisation, then...

Yes, architects and engineers such as Nervi and Riccardo Morandi were also great innovators in the industrial sphere. They developed and patented construction systems that allowed for the creation of efficient, replicable, and relatively inexpensive structures. In contrast, today's facilities tend to be more unique and can incur enormous costs, even if their appearances are somewhat similar.

In the case of the Winter Olympics, however, the problem is not just the facilities...

The facilities themselves are only part of the problem. Much more invasive is the service infrastructure: roads, accommodation for athletes, water and sewage networks, lighting, electrical and digital networks. All this has a huge impact on the territory, often at the expense of the public sector. And they permanently alter the landscape.

Is it possible to reconcile all this with sustainability?

It depends. We must not idealise the mountains as a virgin territory: the Alps have been a built landscape for centuries. Farmsteads, traditional architecture and cultivation are all forms of artificialisation. The fundamental difference is who builds and for whom. Interventions make sense if they respond to the needs of those who live in those places, not just to external or temporary logic.

In this sense, the involvement of the local population becomes central...

Of course. The Swiss model, with its use of referendums, is interesting in this respect. Those who live in these areas should be able to assess the merits of the proposed interventions. Furthermore, today there is a credible alternative to the construction of new works: the reuse and improvement of existing ones, a much more sustainable and rational strategy.

Yet it seems that large infrastructure projects still exert a strong fascination...

"Infrastructure drives societies crazy almost everywhere. Rem Koolhaas addressed this issue twenty years ago, noting that in large cities, everything is constructed simultaneously without any real hierarchy. This approach also helps avoid making definitive choices. There is a Keynesian belief that public works always stimulate the economy. In Italy, we have seen this with the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR); many projects have been revived simply because funding has suddenly become available.

Does this also apply to the Milano-Cortina Olympics?

Milan is a city with strong ties to major events. Expo 2015 inaugurated a construction cycle that is probably coming to fruition today. In a sense, the Olympics represent the omega of this cycle. But Cortina and the alpine environment also come into play here, which is completely different from a large city. And let us not forget that Milan and Cortina are five hours apart by car: it is not exactly an integrated urban system.

Are there any positive examples in mountain areas?

A few. The 1956 Olympics in Cortina, for example, were important because they helped define an "Alpine style" of architecture and create new economies, from tourism to sportswear. But that was a different historical phase, the economic boom. Today, it is more difficult to replicate those positive effects.

And if they are not replicated?

The risk is building cathedrals in the desert, structures designed for seasonal peaks but which then remain empty for most of the year. It is a problem similar to that of seaside resorts out of season. This is why major events work better in metropolitan contexts, where demand is continuous and sporting needs are growing.

Are there any interesting alternative models?

Multiple bids from various countries or regions help to reduce risk and diversify investments. Alternatively, there are radical choices, such as those implemented in Zermatt, where access is limited, and transportation relies almost exclusively on rail and electric options. While this approach may cater to elitist tourism, it demonstrates that effective planning, sustainability, and development can coexist harmoniously.

In conclusion, do major events still play a role in redesigning space?

In urban areas, this is possible. However, in mountainous regions, the situation is much more complex. Without a long-term vision and the consent of local communities, there is a significant risk that the negative consequences of these events will outweigh the benefits.

Content created and published in collaboration with laRegione.