Click here to download

On the "exceptional" dimension of mega-events. Managing «exceptional routines » in London and Milan
Journal Title: ARCHIVIO DI STUDI URBANI E REGIONALI 
Author/s: Matteo Basso 
Year:  2017 Issue: 119 Language: Italian 
Pages:  22 Pg. 97-118 FullText PDF:  142 KB
DOI:  10.3280/ASUR2017-119007
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


Although mega-events almost represent an ordinary tool of urban policy, they are often regarded as exceptional situations. Through an analysis of planning processes carried out in London and Milan, this paper provides a problematization of such an exceptional dimension and argues the need to consider mega-events as cases of «exceptional routines». This notion is used as a key to interpret the governance architectures adopted by the two cities, and their effects on urban policy-making.
Keywords: Mega-events; exceptional routines; state of exception; London 2012 Olympics; Milan 2015 World Expo

  1. Agamben G. (2003). Stato di eccezione. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
  2. Altshuler A.A. e Luberoff D. (2003). Mega-projects. The changing politics of urban public investment. Washington, DC: Brookings Institutions; Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
  3. Badmin P., Coombs M. e Rayner G. (1992). Leisure operational management. Volume 1: Facilities. II edizione, Harlow: Longman Group UK Limited.
  4. Baptista I. (2012). Practices of exception in urban governance: reconfiguring power inside the state. Urban Studies, 1-16. DOI 10.1177/0042098012453858
  5. Barella D. (2002). I Giochi Olimpici nella prospettiva politologica. In: Bobbio L. e Guala C., a cura di, Olimpiadi e grandi eventi. Verso Torino 2006. Come una città può vincere o perdere le Olimpiadi. Roma: Carocci, 95-107.
  6. Bolocan Goldstein M. (2009). Geografie milanesi. Santarcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli Editore.
  7. Bolocan Goldstein M., Dansero E. e Loda M. (2014). Grandi eventi e ricomposizione dello spazio urbano: per un’agenda di ricerca in una prospettiva geografica. Logos, Dossiê – Megaeventos e espaço urbano. Ediçao 40, 24(1): 1-18.
  8. Bonaccorsi M. (2009). Potere assoluto. La Protezione civile al tempo di Bertolaso. Roma: Edizioni Alegre.
  9. Botto I.S. (2014). Milano Expo 2015. Complessità del processo e governance straordinaria. Paper presentato alla XVII Conferenza Nazionale della Società Italiana degli Urbanisti, Milano, 15-16 maggio.
  10. Brindley T., Rydin Y. e Stoker G. (1996). Remaking planning. The politics of urban change. London; New York: Routledge.
  11. Broudehoux A. (2013). Neo-liberal exceptionalism in Rio de Janeiro’s Olympic Port regeneration. In: Leary M.E. and McCarthy J., eds., The Routledge companion to urban regeneration. London: Routledge, 558-568.
  12. Brownill S. (1990). Developing London’s Docklands. Another great planning disaster? London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
  13. Burns J.P.A. and Mules T.L. (1986). A framework for the analysis of major special events. In: Burns J.P.A., Hatch J.H. and Mules T.L., eds., The Adelaide Grand Prix: the impact of a special event. Adelaide: The Centre for South Australian Economic Studies, 5-38.
  14. Capantini M. (2010). I grandi eventi. Esperienze nazionali e sistemi ultrastatali. Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica.
  15. Cavallo Perin R. e Gagliardi B. (2012). La disciplina giuridica dei grandi eventi e le olimpiadi invernali «Torino 2006». Diritto Amministrativo. Fasc. 1-2: 189-215.
  16. Cerulli Irelli V. (2007). Principio di legalità e poteri straordinari dell’amministrazione. Diritto Pubblico, 2: 345-384.
  17. Corte dei Conti (2013). Determinazione e relazione della Sezione del controllo sugli enti sul risultato del controllo eseguito sulla gestione finanziaria dell’Expo 2015 S.p.A. per gli esercizi 2011 e 2012.
  18. Dansero E. (2002). I «luoghi comuni» dei grandi eventi. Allestendo il palcoscenico territoriale per Torino 2006. In: Dansero E. e Segre A., a cura di, Il territorio dei grandi eventi. Riflessioni e ricerche guardando a Torino 2006. Numero monografico del Bollettino della Società Geografica Italiana. Serie XII, volu-me VII, 4: 861-894.
  19. Dansero E. and Mela A. (2007). Olympic territorialization. Revue de Géographie Alpine-Journal of Alpine Research. 95 (3): 16-26.
  20. Davis J. and Thornley A. (2010). Urban regeneration for the London 2012 Olympics: issues of land acquisition and legacy. City, Culture and Society. 1: 89-98.
  21. De Magistris A. (2008). Il ruolo dei Megaeventi nello sviluppo urbano e regionale. Una lettura storica. Torino: Istituto di Ricerche Economico-Sociali del Piemonte.
  22. Del Cerro Santamarìa G., ed. (2013). Urban megaprojects. A worldwide view. Bingley: Emerald.
  23. Dunn K.M. and McGuirk P.M. (1999). Hallmark events. In: Cashman R. e Hughes A., eds., Staging the Olympics. The event and its impact. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 18-32.
  24. Essex S. and Chalkley B. (1998). Olympic Games: catalyst of urban change. Leisure Studies. 17(3): 187-206.
  25. Dente B. (2009). Studiare le decisioni politico/amministrative: l’approccio dell’analisi delle politiche pubbliche. In: Fareri P. Rallentare. Il disegno delle politiche urbane, a cura di Marianna Giraudi, Milano: FrancoAngeli, 25-44.
  26. Flyvbjerg B., Bruzelius N. e Rothengatter W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk. An anatomy of ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Fussey P. and Galdon-Clavell G. (2011). Introduction: towards new frontiers in the study of mega-events and the city. Urbe. Revista Brasileira de Gestão Urbana (Brazilian Journal of Urban Management). 3(2): 149-155.
  28. Fussey P., Coaffee J., Armstrong G. and Hobbs D. (2011). Securing and sustaining the Olympic City. Reconfiguring London for 2012 and beyond. Aldershot-Farnham: Ashgate.
  29. Gallione A. (2012). Dossier Expo. Milano: Bur.
  30. Getz D. (2005). Event Management & Event Tourism. New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation.
  31. Girginov V. (2013). Governance of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. In: Girginov V., ed., Handbook of the London 2012 Olympic and Para-lympic Games. Volume One: Making the Games. London: Routledge: 130-143.
  32. Gray N. and Porter L. (2014). By any means necessary: urban re generation and the “state of exception” in Glasgow’s Commonwealth Games 2014. Antipode: 1-21.
  33. Guala C. (2015). Mega Eventi. Immagini e legacy dalle Olimpiadi alle Expo. Roma: Carocci.
  34. Hall C.M. (1989a). The definition and analysis of hallmark tourist events. Geo-Journal. 19 (3): 263-268.
  35. Hall C.M. (1989b). Hallmark events and the planning process. In: Syme G.J., Shaw B.J., Fenton D.M. and Mueller W.S., eds., The planning and evaluation of hallmark events. Aldershot; Brookfield: Avebury: 20-39.
  36. Harvey D. (1989a). The urban experience. Oxford: Basil Blackwell (trad. it.: L’esperienza urbana. Milano: il Saggiatore, 1998).
  37. Harvey D. (1989b). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler. 71(1): 3-17.
  38. Imbesi P.N., a cura di (2004). Governare i grandi eventi. L’effetto Pulsar e la pianificazione urbanistica. Roma: Gangemi.
  39. Imrie R. and Thomas H. (1999). Assessing urban policy and the Urban Development Corporations. In: Imrie R. and Thomas H., eds., British urban policy. An evaluation of the Urban Development Corporations. II edition, London: Sage, 3-39.
  40. Kearns G. e Philo C., eds. (1993). Selling places. The city as cultural capital, past and present. Oxford: Pergamon.
  41. Kingdon J.W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Harlow-New York: Longman.
  42. Logan J.R. and Molotch H.L. (1987). Urban fortunes. The political economy of place. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  43. Marrero-Guillamón I. (2012). Olympic state of exception. In: Powell H. and Marrero-Guillamón I., eds., The art of dissent: adventures in London’s Olympic state. London: Marshgate Press: 20-29.
  44. Marzuoli C. (2005). Il diritto amministrativo dell’emergenza: fonti e poteri. Annuario 2005 dell’associazione italiana dei professori di diritto amministrativo – Il diritto amministrativo dell’emergenza: 5-30.
  45. Messina P. (2010). Protezione incivile. Milano: RCS.
  46. Muñoz F. (2006). Olympic urbanism and Olympic Villages: planning strategies in Olympic host cities, London 1908 to London 2012. In: Horne J. e Man-zeinreiter W., eds., Sports mega-events. Social scientific analyses of a global phenomenon. Malden, Oxford e Carlton: Blackwell Publishing: 175-187.
  47. Newman P. (2007). “Back the bid”: the 2012 summer Olympics and the governance of London. Journal of Urban Affairs. 29(3): 255-267.
  48. Newman P. and Thornley A. (2005). Planning world cities. Globalization and urban politics. Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  49. Orueta F.D. and Fainstein S.S. (2008). The new mega-projects: genesis and impacts. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 32 (4): 759-767.
  50. Owens M. (2012). The impact of the London Olympics on the Lower Lea: regeneration lost and found? Australian Planner. 49(3): 215-225.
  51. Paddison R. (1993). City marketing, image reconstruction and urban regeneration. Urban Studies. 30(2): 339-349.
  52. Pasini N. (2015). Expo Milano 2015: genesi di una politica pubblica complessa. Amministrare. 2/3: 181-204.
  53. Piccinato G. (1998). Progettare la città: politiche urbane e grandi eventi. In: Cremaschi M. e Piccinato G., a cura di, “Città e grandi eventi”, Urbanistica Dossier. 18: 1-3.
  54. Poynter G. (2009). London: preparing for 2012. In: Poynter G. e MacRury I., eds., Olympic Cities: 2012 and the remaking of London. Farnham-Burlington: Ash-gate: 183-199.
  55. Raco M. (2005). A step change or a step back? The Thames Gateway and the rebirth of the urban development corporations. Local Economy. 20(2): 141-153.
  56. Raco M. (2012). The privatisation of urban development and the London Olympics 2012. City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action. 16 (4): 452-460.
  57. Raco M. (2013). Delivering flagship projects in an era of regulatory capitalism: stateled privatization and the London Olympics 2012. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research: 1-22., 10.1111/1468-2427.1202DOI: 10.1111/1468-2427.1202
  58. Raco M. e Tunney E. (2010). Visibilities and invisibilities in urban development: small business communities and the London Olympics 2012. Urban Studies. 47(10): 2069-2091.
  59. Ritchie J.B.R. (1984). Assessing the impact of hallmark events: conceptual and research issues. Journal of Travel Research. 23(1): 2-11.
  60. Roccella A. (2010). Milano in stato di eccezione. Giustamm.it. 7(2): 1-12.
  61. Roche M. (2000). Mega-events and modernity. Olympics and expos in the growth of global culture. London: Routledge.
  62. Rossi A. (1995). L’architettura della città. Milano: CittàStudi.
  63. Salzano E. (2005). Fondamenti di urbanistica. La storia e la norma. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
  64. Sánchez F. and Broudehoux A. (2016). The politics of mega-event planning in Rio de Janeiro: contesting the olympic city of exception. In: Viehoff V. e Poynter G., eds., Mega-event cities: urban legacies of global sports events. London-New York: Routledge, 109-122.
  65. Sassen S. (1991). The global city. New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
  66. Sernini M. (1979). Il governo del territorio. Legge speciale contro legge generale. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  67. Short J.R. (2008). Globalization, cities and the Summer Olympics. City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action. 12(3): 321-340.
  68. Smith A. (2012). Events and urban regeneration. The strategic use of events to revitalise cities. London; New York: Routledge.
  69. Smith A. (2013). “De-Risking” East London: Olympic regeneration planning 2000-2012. European Planning Studies: 1-21., 10.1080/09654313.2013.81206DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2013.81206
  70. Stone C.N. (1989). Regime politics. Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas.
  71. Surborg B., VanWynsberghe R. and Wyly E. (2008). Mapping the Olympic growth machine. Transnational urbanism and the growth machine diaspora. City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action. 12(3): 341-355.
  72. Swyngedouw E., Moulaert F. and Rodriguez A. (2002). Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: largescale urban development projects and the new urban policy. Antipode. 34: 542-577.
  73. Thorne R. and Munro-Clark M. (1989). Hallmark events as an excuse for autocracy in urban planning: a case history. In: Syme G.J., Shaw B.J., Fenton D.M. and Mueller W.S., eds., The planning and evaluation of hallmark events. Alder-shot; Brookfield: Avebury, 154-171.
  74. Thornley A. (1991). Urban planning under Thatcherism. The challenge of the market. London; New York: Routledge.
  75. Vainer C. (2016). Mega-events and the city of exception. Theoretical explorations of the Brazilian experience. In: Horne J. e Gruneau R., a cura di, Mega-events and globalization. Capital and spectacle in a changing world order. London-New York: Routledge, 97-112.
  76. Ventimiglia C. (2004). Una emergenza da inefficienza: poteri di ordinanza extra ordinem in materia di protezione civile. Il Consiglio di Stato. 4: 941-975.
  77. Venturi M., a cura di (1994). Grandi eventi. La festivalizzazione della politica urbana. Venezia: Il Cardo editore.
  78. Vitellio I. (2009). Regimi urbani e grandi eventi. Napoli, una città sospesa. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  79. Yin R.K. (1994). Case study research. Design and methods. Thousand Oaks; London-New Delhi: Sage.

Matteo Basso, On the "exceptional" dimension of mega-events. Managing «exceptional routines » in London and Milan in "ARCHIVIO DI STUDI URBANI E REGIONALI" 119/2017, pp. 97-118, DOI:10.3280/ASUR2017-119007

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content