Frontiers of Architectural Research (2013) 2, 387–399

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

2095-2635 & 2013. Hhttp://dx.doi.org/1

nTel.: +31 6 81247E-mail addressesPeer review under

www.elsevier.com/locate/foar

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The image of the Shanghai 2010 Expo thecontribution of single pavilions to Shanghai'sglobal image

Silvio Cartan

Delft University of Technology, Architecture/Public Building, Julianalaan 134, 2628BL Delft, TheNetherlands

Received 11 April 2013; received in revised form 27 June 2013; accepted 28 June 2013

KEYWORDSShanghai;Expo;Architectural fairs;Image andarchitecture

igher Education P0.1016/j.foar.2013

436.: sc@scartas.eu, Sresponsibility of

AbstractThis article offers a retrospective of the Shanghai World Expo 2010, placing it within anhistorical framework and hence comparing it to the other major World Expos from 1851 on. Thestudy analyzes various national contributions through an architectural lens with regard to theirrelationship with the Chinese mega-event and finds that the single images generated by eachnational pavilion contribute to the construction of the general picture of the 2010 Expo,resulting in an enhancement of Shanghai's international reputation on the global stage.

& 2013. Higher Education Press Limited Company. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

1. An history of curiosity

A World Fair or Expo is an infrequently occurring cele-bration that typically showcases the latest or futureadvances in arts, culture, and technology (Goldblattand Nelson, 2001, p. 212).

ress Limited Company. Production.06.006

.Carta@tudelft.nl.Southeast University.

The above is a good official definition of an Expo; however,we observe in the Expo's history a gradual change away fromthe original intentions for which it was created to its currentstate as a more global event more befitting our contemporaryexperience. However, in order to understand this fundamen-tal progression of the Expo's history, a step back is necessary.

The expositions found its origin in two meaningful momentsin world history. On the one hand was the exposition desbeaux arts (the first regular exposition was the Salon desArtistes Français of 1673 in Paris), which sprang from the habitof showing paintings and other works of art at fairs. On theother hand, during the Enlightenment the most advancednations began to exhibit recent products of industries (in 1756and 1761 the London Society of Arts exhibited machines andindustrial products to the public). Those sorts of exhibitionswere still associated with a city, a group of artists or local

and hosting by Elsevier B.V.Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

S. Carta388

manufacturers. As the industrial revolution grew and progres-sively involved an ever larger number of nations and people,the structure and the spirit of the exhibitions drasticallychanged, until they became Universal Expositions.

The Expo's tradition starts, in fact, precisely in the middleof the nineteenth century, during which colonial nations likeFrance, Belgium and Great-Britain were in the fullness oftheir Industrial Revolution phase. The world exhibitions wereprimarily the product of the age of industrialization. The aimof the first World Expo was to show all sorts of produce, fromall nations on the planet. That purpose is the reason “thedirector-general of the Paris Exposition Universelle of 1867,Raymond Le Play, openly talked of the ‘encyclopédie', acomplete record of human knowledge, through all lands andall times, as being his model. These visionaries attempt toaccomplish this by erecting a vast building, and inviting allnations, with their colonial possessions, to fill it with objects.Perhaps this offers us the clearest definition of what anexposition is: it is an attempt to depict the world through avast display of produce” (Greenhalgh, 1993 p. 29).

If the intention was to create a vast exhibition stage andshow the world what the various civilizations could do (ormore accurately, what they had found in the various parts ofthe world they had been to) we should look carefully at thecultural and social conditions of those times. The Exposmust be read in a synchronic way.

As Paul Greenhalgh pointed out in his account1, thedemand at the rise of the expos for cultural informationmust be related to the scarcity of museums throughoutEurope. The “grand museums we now casually accept asbeing part of our institutional life, given a small number ofexceptions, were not yet in place. And along with theabsence of museums, went the absence of classificationsystems we now treat as natural, the absence of hoards ofmuseum workers we now identify as an entire profession,the absence of a public who understood how to view objectsin an institutionalized environment, and, most significantly,an absence of an understanding of what was not possible.”

Moreover, the sense of novelty and freshness (and evenweirdness and oddity) we have now become used to findingin a museum or exhibition, was at the time associated withwhat were called “curiosities,” and a great deal of atten-tion was paid to the exotic.

2According to Paul Greenhalgh's figures, the success of the 1851event was unprecedented: 6 million people paid to enter the

2. History of Expos

I wish you could have witnessed the 1st May 1851, thegreatest day of our history, the most beautiful and imposingand touching spectacle ever seen […] It was truly aston-ishing a fairy scene. Many cried and all felt touched andimpressed with devotional feelings. It was the happiest,proudest day of my life, and I can think of nothing else. Thetriumph is immense, for up to the last hours, the difficul-ties, the opposition, and the illnatured attempts to annoyand frighten, of a certain set of fashionables and Protec-tionists, were immense (Benson, 1908).

On May 3rd, 1851, with these words the young Britishqueen Victoria described to her uncle, the King of Belgium,

1It is remarkable to remember that even other civilizations wereobjects of curiosity at that time in Europe.

the opening day of the “Great Exhibition of the Works of AllNations,” held at Hyde Park in London. The Great Exhibitionwas the first such dramatic event of its kind up to that time.With the passage of time such events went under severaltitles, including “Exposition Universelles,” “InternationalExhibition,” World's Fair, or Trade Fair, depending on thehost country. However, the 1851 London's Great Exhibition iswithout doubt considered the first world Expo.

After the example and the success2 of the first Expo, othernations quickly followed the British example and this newtypology of event was subsequently hosted for the first timein cities like Dublin (1853), Paris (1855), New York (1853/4),Moscow (1872), Vienna (1873), Philadelphia (1876) and so on,spreading from Europe to the United States and fromAustralia to Asia. Another remarkable occurrence followedthe first Expos. As the exhibitors were growing in number andin the volume of objects they presented to public, thestrategy of having a single building in which the entire eventwas organized appeared to be increasingly insufficient. Afterinitial attempts to annex smaller buildings to the main hall,the creation of several (and different) buildings sponsored byprivate and governmental entities seemed to offer the mostfeasible solution. As Paul Greenhalgh explains, the first “fully-fledged pavilion-style exposition was the Philadelphia Centen-nial of 1876, followed in 1878 by Paris”.

From that point on, the one-unique-building solution wasthoroughly abandoned for the more flexible pavilion-basedoption. This latter solution resulted in a quite successfulavenue for allowing exhibitors and large manufacturers toconceive of places suitable for their needs in presentingtheir products. Pavilions grew in number and size, andExpo sites began to increasingly resemble small temporarycities, “bristling with fantastical edifices” (Greenhalgh,1993 p. 29). The pavilions were connected through parksand an infrastructural system organized by the host city.

During the last part of the nineteenth century thepavilion-based Expos reached their maturity. Within theExpo terrain several kinds of activities were held, fromexhibitions of products from the colonies, to art, science,agriculture, education, technological advancements andinventions and novelties of any kind. The exhibitions weresurrounded by public entertainments such as concerts, livemusic, conferences and debates, and even sporting activ-ities. Also significant was the passage from sector-basedexhibitions for experts in a certain profession, to a largerand more celebrated mass event. The public that is, a vastarray of people from every segment of the societies becamevisitors to the Expos. Obviously, this last aspect perceptiblychanged the requirements – programmatically speaking – ofthis kind of event. A vast public means commercial facil-ities, restaurants, places to stay and to rest (covered,shady, airy or warm depending on the climatic conditionsof the city). Besides such considerations, the people them-selves represented an important component of such events.Greenhalgh describes a “vast cultural noise, an unendingsequence of frenzied movement and colour, as the ocean of

Crystal Palace over six months and see the products of 20,000exhibitors. The total profit from the whole event was estimated ataround 190,000 pounds, a vast sum for those times.

389The image of the Shanghai 2010 Expo the contribution of single pavilions to Shanghai's global image

voracious exhibitors vied for the attentions of the millionsof visitors. It was a vulgar microcosm of the world that theEuropeans and Americans had created” (Greenhalgh, 1993p. 29).

Since the public and (above all) private manufacturerslooked at the Expo as an important worldly occasion to selltheir products—especially in advertising terms they fol-lowed a market strategy oriented toward catching people'sattention in order to be better known and remembered byvisitors. The expositions then needed to have a certainextraordinary character and appearance. In order to escapefrom the ordinary feeling of the working and productivelives of nineteenth century cities where everything wasorganized based on social and political rules the exhibitorsbased their selling strategies on the fantastic and surreal.Their “raison d'être was in unreality” explained by Greenhalgh(1993) p. 29).

By the beginning of the twentieth century the Expo was arecognized event worldwide, and, as is easy to imagine, theinterests (political and economical) were manifold, varied anddifficult to manage for nations and organizers. Expos at thattime lacked any clear reference point on an internationalscale and each country abided by its own rules. Probably theawareness of that lack led nations to try to find common,shared boundaries for the definition of the Expos: rules andregulations were needed. A sort of regulation set appeared forthe first time with the international convention of Berlin,signed on October 26th, 1912. This first attempt was never putinto force due to the onset of the First World War. After someyears, the Convention Relating to International Exhibitions wassigned in Paris on the 22nd of November 1928 by 39 countriesand represented the first official guidelines to nations forExpos. The agreement went into effect only in 1930 andresulted in the creation of the Bureau International desExpositions (BIE) (International Exhibitions Bureau) in Paris.

Of course, the Convention was updated during the twen-tieth century in 1948, 1966, 1972, 1982 and in 1988 based onnew conditions. The Convention clearly explained that “Theexpression ‘official or officially recognized international exhi-bitions' shall be deemed to include every display, whatever itsdesignation, to which foreign countries are invited through thediplomatic channel, which is not held periodically, of whichthe principal object is to demonstrate the progress of differentcountries in one or several branches of production, and inwhich, as regard admission, no distinction is made in principlebetween buyers and visitors.

The provisions of the said convention do not apply to thefollowing: (1) exhibitions having a duration of less thanthree weeks, (2) scientific exhibitions organized on theoccasion of the international congress, provided that theirduration does not exceed the period mentioned in 1, (3)exhibitions of the fine arts, (4) exhibitions organized by onecountry in another country on the invitation of the latter.

In the rest of the Convention and its updated versions it isclarified that an “official or officially recognized internationalexhibition” (our Expo) must be held in a temporary site, for aduration of not less than 6 weeks or more than 6 months andmust be regarded as an “exhibition,” with demonstrationshaving a principal instructive purpose with the participation ofmore than one country. Moreover, from January 1st, 1995, theperiod between two recorded exhibitions was set at a mini-mum of 5 years (Hannover 2000, Aichi 2005, Shanghai 2010).

3. A sufficient reason

The opening debates, official presentations and official cata-logues of expos contain a great deal of explanation of the goodintentions behind them. Most of the time, these declarationscome in the order of the importance of the public figureattached by the process. First is the address of the PrimeMinister or equivalent, then the representatives of adminis-trative divisions of the country (region, province, municipality)who supported the event, and then the organizers, the expos'chairmen, and so on. All these figures – indispensable for theimplementation of the exposition – must clarify their culturalgenerosity, in some cases even the philanthropy that hasmoved their actions and their intent. As the event – due toits universal nature involves a multitude of diverse nationswith a variety of political and geographic conditions whichmight be poles apart, and occasionally tensions among them,whether real or unclear – among the main reasons often to bearticulated in the Expos' presentations are undoubtedly theneed for peace, collaboration and common developmentamong nations. These are of course admirable and noteworthymotivations, but while looking at the magnitude of thoseevents, the number of people involved and – above all – howmuch money is invested, it becomes less convincing that suchhuge national efforts are rising from philanthropic callings.

Let us approach the question from a different angle. Fornations, attending such huge global events means demonstrat-ing what their current status is from a technological, scientific,and cultural point of view in a direct way. This opportunityrepresents a daunting responsibility for the government incharge at that moment and the entire nation: what to show tothe entire world? To use a poor metaphor, we could imaginethat a nation participating in a world Expo could be some-thing like opening the main door of its house, with all theconsequences attached to doing so. Is every nation – as everyprivate house – ready to let the rest of the world come insideand have a look? Indirectly, however, the public can observe adiverse set of facts and consequently undertake further levelsof reading. Observations such as how much effort a nation hasput into its presence at the Expo, how much it appears tobelieve in it, who designed a given pavilion and why, what wasinside, what was presented, may all be expected once theevent's first impressions are past. Then other sorts of questionscan be raised concerning for instance in the twentieth centuryExpos—the large private manufacturers that actively partici-pated, such as Ford, General Motors, Hoover, Moët et Chandonand many others. Why did they participate in the event with acertain amount of investment and why they might they havechanged strategies completely for another event held in adifferent nation or in a different period?

Paul Greenhalgh reminds us that the expositions universelleswere “given their scale and opulence for political and economicmotives. Especially in the 1870 to 1914 period, the hey-day ofthe medium, a politico-economy intensity can be found as themotive power of every site, as nationalist structures consoli-dated themselves and the imperial drive gained new verve atthe expense of Africa and Asia. Economic and political motivesmanifested themselves in four ways: through industry, trade,national cohesion and empire” (Greenhalgh, 1993 p. 34).

In the passage from the nineteenth century to thetwentieth, then, the big exhibitions were a powerful venue

S. Carta390

for both economical and political purposes. An Expo couldbe used by a private company to present new products in anation which could represent a completely new market, andthus the presence at the Expo could guarantee new and vastprofits. An exposition at a Universal Expo could have alsobeen used to drive the people's attention towards a certainsector of society and mitigate tensions between culturalgroups or competing ethnicities within a nation, or evenracial tension due to the mobility of people between themain nation and its colonies. The Expo could have providedthe semblance of a certain cultural unity. In this respectGreenhalgh (1993) p. 34, remarks that “It is not surprisingthat the four most involved nations in expositions wereBelgium, Britain, France and the United States of America”.

Looking for a second time at the forewords of theorganizers and the supporters of such big events as theExpositions Universelles, we see the contemporary Exposfrom a bit more of a distance. If economics, politics and themarket are the main engines of the machine which imple-ments the Expos, we cannot then ignore that the secondaryengines also have their role. Art, architecture, local tradi-tions, heritage, entertainment, beliefs, sports or simply ademand for jet-setter destinations are all integral parts ofthe Expos: these build up a public (and universal) image ofthe event and the nation which hosts it. They confersplendor and opulence; they are the first thing people seeand admire in the exhibition; they provide the features thepeople are stunned by and—it seems likely the images thevisitors will keep in their memories for all their lives. But itwould be quite naïve to think of these as the main reasonsfor the Expos.

4. Famous examples from the past

Some significant buildings a remarkable heritage from pastExpos are worth remembering, and they can offer moreclues in terms of collocating the Shanghai Expo both in itshistory and our present time. As mentioned, the first greatworld exhibition was the one held in London in 1851. Englisharchitect Joseph Paxton conceived a 26-ac exposition spacewhich was to attract about six million people and shownovelties like the Colt revolver, the telegraph, and falseteeth. What remains of the Great Exhibition building (564 mlong with an interior height of 33 m) is images in reproduc-tions hung in the houses of people in the most remotecorners of the world. The Crystal Palace – as it was dubbedby Punch Magazine – became during the years afterwards areal prototype: several imitations arose in Europe and theUnited States in cities such as Amsterdam, New York, Dublinand Munich. The first truly international Expo reflected anapotheosis of a new world featuring a sense of profoundscientific and technological change. The financial balancewas definitely positive and Prince Albert used the Expo'sprofits in the creation of the new Albert & Victoria Museum.Five years later the Exposition Universelle des Produits del'Industrie was held in Paris at Champ de Mars. A rectangulararea (165 ac) was set aside to host a large oval building withseven concentrically arranged halls, each dedicated to aparticular type of product to be presented. The buildingcould have been experienced either along the rings so as tosee a specific category as presented by various countries or

moving in and out of the rings so as to see what a singlenation had to offer. In 1873 it was Vienna's turn to host theworld exposition. The chosen building—in the exhibitionarea of the city park of Prater (a former royal huntingrefuge) was built in a pompous neo-Renaissance style,although with some tweaks. A quite predictable mainrectangular shape was this time sectioned off by seventeentransepts, and one 914-m corridor was set symmetricallyalong the longitude. At the center of the rectangular floorplan a giant wrought-iron and glass dome was placed: theRotunda, the largest structure ever built without interposedbuttresses. The building was covered both outside andinside by neo-Renaissance ornamentation.

During the Exposition Universelle de Paris of 1878 severalnew technological novelties were presented. The ice machine,the lift and the telephone are just a few examples, but themain attraction was electric lighting. The exposition site wasdivided by the Champ de Mars (as in the past) at the suggestionof Viollet-le-Duc, and on the opposite bank of the Seine, leTrocadéro. The 346- by 705-m building was called the Palais del'Industrie. Its shape easily recalls the previous expo building inPhiladelphia from two years before. Unlike that structure,though, the French one was built with a basement level bothfor dealing with the uneven surface of the Champ de Marsand to allow an ingenious system of ventilation pipes inside.Quite remarkable for its daring structure was the Galerie deMachines, conceived by the engineer Henri de Dion.

The year 1889 marks the birth of one of the mostsignificant landmarks of all Expo history. La Dame de Fer –

as it was named – was conceived as a gigantic folly (300 mhigh) at the center of the park outside of the severalnational pavilions of the main exposition building. Originallyseen as something monstrous and unsightly by architects,painters and beaux-arts experts, the Tour Eiffel was ashocking element in its early days. The Eiffel tower was apuddled-iron structure on which somebody forgot to placewalls, roofs and even a big dome. If the Tour Eiffel startedits existence being judged as simply inappropriate by themajority of Parisians, it is superfluous to note how much theconsideration of it has changed over time. With its 300-mheight the tallest piece of construction in the world at thetime it became the symbol of the Universal Exhibition and aspectacular manifestation of French superiority in calcula-tions concerning iron structures, tensile strengths, indus-trial production and technological development.

For the 1929 Expo in Barcelona, visitors encountered aconfused jumble of styles. Catalan modernism (of whichAntoniGaudí was one of the most prominent representa-tives), art deco from Paris, and other forces were drivingthe aesthetic expectations in the visitors. People were alsointerested in the overall metropolitan feeling of the site andits monumental buildings. Meanwhile the Weimar Republicwas exhibiting for the first time since the First World War,and chose an architect who could reflect its democraticideals but also the industrial potential of the nation. How-ever, Mies van der Rohe's pavilion was misunderstood, if notvirtually ignored, by the public. It took a quarter of centurybefore the people – attracted by opulence and monumen-tality – had the proper interpretative tools to recognize theimportance of Mies's Barcelona Pavilion.

If Mies demonstrated the potential of a full-on use ofindustrial processes in architecture, the 1933 Chicago Expo

391The image of the Shanghai 2010 Expo the contribution of single pavilions to Shanghai's global image

brought the people directly to the future. At least, to thefuture they could imagine at the time. Among severalinteresting pieces of architecture (Albert Kahn's huge Gen-eral Motors building, the House of Tomorrow by Keck andKeck, and The Italian Pavilion by AdalbertoLibera) theSkyride emerged. Two gigantic towers (spanning 564 m andeach 191 m tall) brought streamlined “rocket cars” (carry-ing 36 passengers each) back and forth 66 m over thelagoon. Visitors could experience a previously unseen viewof the exposition site and of the entire city. The exposition'sname was indicative: A Century of Progress.

“The World of Tomorrow,” the 1939-40 New York worldexposition, was significant, starting with the novelties itpresented: air conditioning, nylon stockings, color film andtelevision. Around a conservatively modern main themeprovided by the fair's design board (the body responsible fordesign regulations) in which big blank surfaces were con-sidered something normal on the one hand, and a certainfuturistic taste typical of the United States of the 30 s, someinterventions emerged. Besides Lucio Costa, Oscar Nie-meyer and Paul Lester Weiner's Brazilian pavilion, GeneralMotors'sFuturama pavilion by Albert Kahn (the most popularexhibit in the fair), and the Swedish pavilion by SvenMarkelius, one project is renowned worldwide: the Finnishpavilion by Alvar Aalto.

Similar to the Tour Eiffel strategy, for the 1958 Brusselsworld exposition another huge folly appeared. Designed byAndré Waterkeyn from a graphic scheme based on a body-centered cubic crystal structure this 100-m tall spectacle wascalled The Atomium. Its structure recalls a unit cell of an ironcrystal magnified 165 billion times. On the verge of the sixties,the organizers of the Brussels Expo had thought of the metalmolecular structure as an appropriate symbol for the forth-coming era and saw it as well as a symbol of peace in the midstof the Cold War. The lower spheres, in fact, housed scientificexhibitions of the peaceful use of atomic energy in the USSR,USA, Germany, Italy and Belgium. As did the majority of theuniversal exhibitions, the 1958 expo lasted 6 months, but theAtomium is still in place and has become a sort of symbol forcontemporary Belgium architecture (and hosts a panoramicrestaurant, now a tourist attraction). For this fair Le Corbusierdesigned the “hyperbolic paraboloid” for the Philips companypavilion. The color television was presented for the first timein the American pavilion.

For the Seattle exposition of 1962 the Space Needle wasrealized. This 182-m observation tower was an attractionfor the fair and subsequently became a symbol for the cityof Seattle. At the 1964 New York World's fair the U.S. SteelCompany sponsored the construction of the Unisphere: atwelve-story, stainless steel framework depicting the Earthwith the continents in relief. The Japan World Exhibition, heldin Osaka in 1970, was a quite important expo. The differencesbetween Western and Eastern cultures emerged in the pavi-lions. A new movement became apparent, largely inspiredby Japanese architects, and characterized by the metabolicprinciple. Remarkable examples – among many others werethe Symbol Zone – a giant space-frame structure designed byKenzoTange, the Swiss pavilion by Willi Walter, and the Gaspavilion by Ohbayashi-Gumi. At the Osaka expo, architectsmade use of the event as an opportunity for experimentation,as a study, for which the more mundane, everyday projectsoffer little scope.

Twenty-two years after Osaka, in 1992, Seville held theworld Expo. The chosen site was La Cartuja, an artificialisland built to protect the city from the flooding of theGuadalquivir River. A fundamental aspect of this Expo wasthe task given to the architects to restore the relationshipbetween the site and the historic city center, which was cutoff from the river by an obsolete rail yard. For the first timethe Expo event was “used” in order to give new life to anabandoned area of the city, a use which brings the eventinto a more territorial scale. The Expo became less afantastic scene inside a fence, and came closer to a goodopportunity to develop the host city. After the Expo, theplan was to transform the Expo site into Cartuja ‘93, aresearch and development park designed to turn Seville intoa hub of commercial and intellectual activity for thewestern part of Mediterranean area. However, the post-Expo plan seemed after some years to be a great failure,and the Expo site appeared to be abandoned.

Remarkable at the Hannover 2000 Expo is the MVRDV'sDutch pavilion, in which a series of landscapes have beensimulated and re-produced in 5 stories. The pavilion hasbeen here used for critical purposes by the architects, inorder to highlight their views of current Dutch nationallandscape conditions, offering readings from the past (lowerlevels) to the future (windmills that produce energy on thetop floor). The pavilion is not used in this case merely toamaze visitors but as a means of reflection and as a startingpoint for further debate on history, and on the present andfuture of the use of the territory.

One general remark concerning all the Expos shouldbe made: the role played by architects in the 1851 expoand during the nineteenth century in general was merelymarginal. They were put to use merely as decorators whilethe main protagonists were the engineers. This division ofduties is quite clear in the case of the Crystal Palace or theGaleries de Machines. For instance the architects of theTour Eiffel were Joseph Bouvard, Jean-Camille Formigé, andCharles Louis Ferdinand Dutert, but the tower is stillreferred to by the name of its chief engineer, Gustav Eiffel.During the twentieth century the architect progressivelytook a more significant place in the exhibitions and this risehas something to do, undoubtedly, with the evolution of theglobal society over the years.

5. Shanghai 2010: Better city, better life

The framing of Expos, and of such mega-events as WorldFairs and major sporting or cultural events, as urbanstrategies for constructing and improving the image of alocal city has been extensively studied in academic circles(Getz, 1991; Roche, 2000). Jing and Rong (2010) analyzedthe strategic relationship between a major event and citybranding, describing the process of creation of a new citybrand through the recognition among people (both local andforeign) of a new identity superimposed onto a previousone. Those authors consider the new appearance of the cityto be a market product, advertised widely through theconstruction of rich, keen imagery designed to confer uponthe city a feeling of internationality and exclusivity. Accord-ing to the authors, Shanghai's branding goal was to positionthe city amongst the “international metropolises”, such as

4For an elaborated version of this notion, see Chapter I “Judgingthe Icon” in Jencks, C. (2005). The Iconic Building, p. 21.

S. Carta392

London, Paris and New York. Recent studies have demon-strated how cities have successfully used mega-events asmarketing tools by building a new city image before a globalaudience (Law, 1993; Robertson and Guerrier, 1998; Waitt,2003). In particular, Ying Deng (2013) conceptualizes theExpo as a mega-event flagship (MEF). Deng explains that theMEF is a strategic tool policymakers use to foster andestablish city branding, as well as “an event-based mechan-ism to accelerate the process of urban renewal” (Deng,2013, 108). However, the author distinguishes two types ofstrategic goals for the Shanghai Expo – immediate and short-term – with the former provided by architecture and whathe characterizes as “a spectacular shell”, and the latterlong-run goal achieved through enhanced urban renewal,marked by greater integration into the whole of Shanghai'sterritory and society (Deng and Poon, 2011, 2012). In hisanalysis of the Chinese Pavilion, Deng provides a clearexample of this mechanism, describing how the projectsucceeded in having its quality endure beyond the Expo toplay an active role in ongoing urban renewal.

In order to investigate the real contribution of the“spectacular shells” to the Expo's long-term goal of enhan-cing Shanghai's global reputation, the single pavilionsare here analyzed in terms of their form, materials andspatial composition. That analysis will unpack the imageeach pavilion presentsto the public and an appraisal ofthe meaningseach attempts to convey. The pavilions arepresented in eight groups based on the type of imagepresented.

5.1. Bugs, animals and other icons

One effective way to produce a public image is to erect aniconic building. The effects of such architecture on thepublic and the way its perceptional mechanisms operate toallow the building to be widely recognized as iconic havefrequently been the subject of study.3 Among the first totackle the question of building iconography in the 70 s wereRobert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown. In their bookLearning from Las Vegas they coined the notion of the“Duck” and the “Decorated Shed” as the two predominantways architecture could become iconographic. The formerclassification identifies a building “where the architecturalsystems of space, structure, and program are submergedand distorted by an overall symbolic form” (Venturi et al.,1977, 87), while the latter concerns architectures “wheresystems of space and structure are directly at the service ofprogram, and ornament is applied independently of them”

(Venturi et al., 1977, 87). Charles Jencks has recentlydistinguished iconic buildings as either “iconic icons” or“enigmatic signifiers” (Jencks, 2005). The former identifies“a bizarre reduced image” and – similarly to an iconic sign –

conveys a “similitude between visual images”(Jencks, 2005,28), while the latter encompasses those projects resultingfrom an “absence of strong belief in any metanarrative,ideology, or religion [that] has characterized postmodern

3Starting from Venturi and Scott Brown's Learning from Las Vegas,the list of authors who have worked on iconic buildings is quite long.Recently the phenomenon has been extensively framed by CharlesJencks, who provided a complete phenomenology of the subject inhis The Iconic Building, The Power of Enigma (2005).

culture for several decades and is a strong motivation forthe iconic building to become an enigma” (Jencks, 2005,195). Hence, according to Jencks, the creation of iconicityin architecture lies in the production of an “enigmaticsignifier”. The main characteristics of such a building areambivalence and ambiguity, yet with a certain degree offamiliarity in order that viewers may recognize a knownform or object. Jencks elaborated this notion by relating itto what was theorized by Umberto Eco in the early 60 s asthe “Open Work”, arguing that a building, in order tobecome iconic, needs to bear a certain resemblance toother objects or a series of them. Yet the resemblance mustbe vague enough to trigger the observer's own interpreta-tions. In the activation of the process of searching forpossible meanings based on resemblances, the observer“completes” the image of the building by conferring uponit what Jencks calls a “cosmic reference” (Jencks, 2005,209). Furthermore, Jencks relates the evocative power oficonic buildings to belief and worship. To a certain extent,iconic buildings seem to have replaced monuments andhistorical places of worship. Iconic buildings are “fitted tobe worshipped” (Jencks, 2005, 196, 203), by becomingsymbols of power and success in the city.4

A group of Expo 2010 pavilions (Fig. 1) fall under Jenck'scategorization of iconic buildings, evincing a range of levelsof sophistication, from the most direct reference to a knownform (iconic icons), to the most ambiguous shape (enigmaticsignifier). The bottom line of iconic icons is arguablyrepresented by the Macau pavilion, China.5 Similar to thearchitectural trend which finds its origins in the 30 s in theUS with such projects as the Big Duck (Suffolk County, NewYork, 1931); Goodwin's Randy's Donuts, Inglewood, Califor-nia (1953); or the KFC restaurant, Atlanta, Georgia (1963),along with more contemporary examples such as the Long-aberger Company, Newark, Ohio, United States (1997), theMacau pavilion, China presents itself as a large building thatrenders an unmistakable visual reference. Its external shapemakes it a clear example of Venturi and Scott Brown's Ducktype. The pavilion is in fact in the shape of a rabbit onwheels, its head and tail comprised of colored balloonswhich move up and down to attract visitors. A similarobservation applies to the “Exchange of Ideas,” the Roma-nian pavilion, which consists of a giant green apple withanother hemisphere annexed which, metaphorically speak-ing, represents a slice. The space thus created within thepavilion consists of various platforms with a continuouslandscape made of green, a water strip, ramps, stairs andwalkways, and a stage (in the main apple) from which it ispossible to see the outside. The Shanghai heat obliged theorganizers of the pavilion to cover the distance between theapple and its slice with a large tent to protect visitors fromthe sun. A leaf atop the apple completed the scenography.

5For an extensive analysis of the Macau pavilion, China and apossible city image it may convey, see Chin-EeOng and Hilary duCros, Projecting Post-colonial Conditions at Shanghai Expo 2010,China: Floppy Ears, Lofty Dreams and Macao's Immutable Mobiles,Urban Studies, October 2012 vol. 49 no. 13 2937–2953 Sage. Doi:10.1177/0042098012452459.

Fig. 1 Scheme of the transition from iconic icons to enigmatic signifier.

393The image of the Shanghai 2010 Expo the contribution of single pavilions to Shanghai's global image

Less subtly shaped but making a more evident referenceto local culture is the Saudi Arabian pavilion: a hemispheresupported by columns with palm trees and a tent on top.Visitors experience the feeling of “living in a tent” andsample some of the Arabian landscape's main features. Thepavilion finds a position between being a univocally recog-nizable image and a referential image via elements (archi-tectural and non-architectural), such as palm trees and thetent, that refer to the local landscape. The characteristic(or referential) elements disappear in the Israel pavilion,which consists of two irregular shapes with a large baseprogressively shrinking towards the top. The two volumes –

one in crystal and the other in concrete clad with bricks – lieone on the other in a smooth composition. The United ArabEmirates preferred instead to work with inspired-by-natureshapes. Their pavilion, designed by Foster & Partners, is asystem of shells with differentiated curvatures and a loweredmiddle. The faux-old stainless steel cladding is darkly shiny,and the undulating roof seems inspired by surfaces shaped bythe wind. Elements of references employed symbolically areabsent here, and the overall shape of the building subtlysuggests a reference (to dunes), but no references are clearlyemergent.

The blob of the Japanese pavilion presents an over-whelming shape whose aim appears to be to impress visitorswith its ambiguity of forms. The overall pavilion does notdirectly resemble a widely shared visual image (such as arabbit), but by the use of proportions, colors and materials,it generates a new image which remains open to interpreta-tion. The main shape is interrupted by cones and holeswhich intersect the external shell. However, the complexityof the shape means one must exercise multiple processes ofresemblance in order to create an overall picture. Someparts of the pavilion may refer to a certain visual imagewhich is then immediately negated by the cladding or thecolors. Moreover, the stiffness of the main volume suggestedby the paneling finds a contradiction in the smooth inwardbumps on the upper section, which provide natural lightwithin.

The contradiction or negation between shapes and apossible visual image generates ambiguity and thus publicattention. The constriction of the unclear yet alluring imagereaches its peak with the Finnish pavilion. The buildingpresents the large, simple shape of a vase emptied at itscenter to become a container of a “country in microcosm,presenting both Finland and its society to the world”(finlandatexpo2010.fi, 2010). Called “Kirnu,” the Giant'sKettle, the pavilion works as a sculptural element “aimedat creating visions of such themes as freedom, creativity,and innovation” (finlandatexpo2010.fi, 2010). The pavilionpresents characteristics that are so formal and material thatthey appear to be out of scale and place. The perfection ofthe uniformity and continuity of the cladding, along withthe simple shape of the building, confer upon it a sort ofsurreal appearance, which ultimately distances visitors.

5.2. Building upon local traditions

Other nations chose to create pavilions which expresscertain of their unique aspects at first sight, offering a clearlyrecognizable image from the country to emphasize culturaland technological progress and to strike visitors with a uniqueidentity without resorting to other means. In other words,these nations hoped to capture attention by presenting whatthe nation is capable of doing and designing, emphasiz-ing certain flagship sectors of production. This aim may bepursued through materials, as in the Norwegian pavilion, withits traditional wooden architecture. The fifteen prefab woodentrees constituting the main structural supports of the pavilionare a demonstration of a national product and at the sametime an explication of how the nation hopes to create asustainable future in a “Norway Powered by Nature” (the titleof the pavilion itself). Norway-based architects Helen & Hardconceived the tree structures as a set of “autonomous orcombinatory” elements. They designed the pavilion with athought for its next phase, after the six-month Expo. At thatpoint, “each of the trees in the exhibition can be easilydismantled and relocated,” explain the architects (hha.no,2010). The possible new uses of the structural timber trees areeasily imaginable: a “shaded park installation, playground orsocial meeting place” (hha.no, 2010).

Other pavilions, such as the Indian or the Pakistani,directly denote some original characteristics of each nation.Here, enormous and very old cultures are represented inpatterns, materials and colors. The Pakistani pavilion, forinstance, starts from the belief that “no amount of moderndevelopment can be a substitute for the lessons derivedfrom experiences gained by the collective wisdom accumulatedover thousands of years”(thepeopleofpakistan.wordpress.com,2010). Another way to deal with local characteristics isembodied in the Dutch pavilion. The architect, John Körmeling,answered the primary challenge of the Expo by taking theposition that a Better City, Better Life, has its “origins ina good street”. That idea is the main reason Körmelingdesigned a “street” – actually entitled Happy Street – withvarious types of city buildings: “a house, a shop, a factory,an office, a farm, a petrol station, a sport field, a garage,”(happystreet.nl, 2010) all bases for the architects of a “thecondition for a social life.” The Dutch pavilion is thus a longcurved pathway crossing various buildings conceived of asurban episodes. These buildings are in the shape of typicalDutch houses and public buildings. Behind the shapes of thepavilion lies a shared Dutch way of seeing the city: efficientand steering clear of complications. The architect describeshis Happy Street pavilion as a “walkable roller coaster withbuildings hanging on it like apples on a tree” and as an“open pavilion with no door. The interior is outside”(happystreet.nl, 2010).

Another example of a nation advancing a public imagebased on a common idea emerges in Iceland's contribution.

S. Carta394

The Icelandic pavilion by PlúsArkitektar is in fact an icecube with icy images and panoramas in its interior. Apartfrom the direct reference to ice, the pavilion embodies acontradiction with its surroundings: “The atmosphere insidethe pavilion will be cooled down and dehumidified belowcommon practice to create a cool and tranquil little Icelandat the heart of the World Expo” (worldexpo2010shanghai.blogspot.nl, 2010), explain the architects. Entering the icecube from a stiflingly hot and humid atmosphere such asShanghai's, the public derives a quick overview of Iceland.The visitors “get the feeling that they are approaching acool refreshing sanctuary within the hot and humid cityof Shanghai” (worldexpo2010shanghai.blogspot.nl, 2010),claim the architects. Building upon the idea of presentinga public image grounded in what might generally beexpected by a typical visitor, the Chinese pavilion offers aperspective on local tradition. The building is a system ofpure red beams crossing one another. The beams increasetheir span as they mount to the top to enclose a sort ofconical internal space. “Standing in the central location ofthe Expo site at 63 m tall, triple the height of any otherpavilion, the structure certainly will become a fine exhibitfor Shanghai to present to the world ahead of the Expoopening,” explains the official release. The main structureof the China Pavilion, “The Crown of the East,” presents aremarkable roof consisting of traditional dougong (woodenbrackets fixed layer upon layer between the top of a columnand a crossbeam), a structure “which has a history datingback more than 2000 years”.

Another tactic for building a pavilion's image has to dowith the exploration of traditional techniques. In the caseof the Spanish pavilion, materials and shapes have beenused as leverage to establish a possible bridge betweenSpanish and Chinese cultures. The architect BenedettaTagliabue, inexplaining the shape of the Spanish pavilion,evokes the important goal to “recover the extraordinarycraft of wickerwork in order to bring it back to life and toreinvent it as a new construction technique”(mirallestaglia-bue.com, 2010). Moreover a certain cooperative strategy isimplied: “A series of Chinese characters can be appreciatedsuperimposed with the façade,” explains the architect.Those characteristics “speak of the friendship betweenChina and Spain” and refer to two symbolic elements ofnature: the sun and the moon. The architect “has subsumedthese elements to a poetic reading of the relationshipbetween Spain and China, announcing good omens for thefuture that wind collects and carries around the country.”

5.3. Investing in the evocative power of solidgeometry

In opposition to the use of irregular and complex shapes,images can also exploit the evocative power of pure geo-metric solids. In principle, large and rather simple shapesare evoked in order to be immediately understood andrecognized by the public. One notable trend is a variationamong pavilions that results from altering the same pureshapes into an increasingly subdivided elaboration ofthe original geometry. The pure volumes are first createdas starting point to ensure immediate recognition ofthe geometrical principle (still visible after a few main

modifications), and are then increasingly made more intri-cate and detailed. In the extreme case the original geo-metric shape is no longer recognizable. In order to pursuecomplexity to the “volumes assemblésdans la lumière”(Le Corbusier) an array of details, brakes, holes or complexfaçade systems are generally added.

Australia's pavilion offers the most “pure” geometry,consisting of a massive shape obtained via an extrudedcloud silhouette rendered in brownish metal panels. Fromthe pedestrian level the result resembles a set of hugecylinders connected by suspended tubular passages to areticular structure. A similar formative principle applies tothe Canadian pavilion, which clearly originates from a solidparallelepiped to which a few modifications have beenapplied. The final shape results from the movement inwardsand outwards in space of both the edges and the vertexes,resulting in an irregular volume that still carries thecharacteristics of the mother solid. Several pavilions reflectthis idea, including Italy's, and it is in the latter that thecomplexifying of the original volume into subparts starts tosurface. The main shape consists of massive cement panels—a clad volume whose geometrical perfection is interruptedby local cuts and cracks, with the insertion of variousmaterials and voids. A similar approach can be observed inthe Swedish pavilion, in which a massive main shape isdivided into four cubic volumes with outside walls portray-ing a city-like grid. “The four sections of the pavilionare connected at an intersection, which symbolizes theharmonious interaction between city and countryside”,explain the architects. The subcomponents that are simplyengraved or slightly emphasized in the Italian pavilionincreasingly acquire autonomy from the originating volumein other pavilions. In the Luxembourg pavilion, for instance,one part – in this case the 15-m-high towering blendedstructure – emerges from the rest of the volume, becominga landmark within the pavilion. A step forward in theprocess of detachment of the subpart from the originalvolume is provided by the German pavilion. Conceived as asystem of “walk-through sculpture and a built symbol forbalance”, in that project “cantilevered, polygonal formsand projecting building elements form spaces and land-scapes that interlace with the interior, forming an excitingalteration between inside and outside spaces,” explain thearchitects, Schmidhuber & Partners. The sections of the mainvolume move apart, creating significant openings amongstthem. The resulting proportion of voids and solids confersupon the pavilion an uneven appearance, contributing to thecreation of its peculiar overall image.

The ultimate step in this gradient of dissolution (Fig. 2) isrepresented by the South Korea pavilion. It consists of a large,clear shape which travels along the plot, creating various kindsof in-between (enclosed) spaces through punctual volumetricsubtractions. The essence of the original volume disintegrates,still carrying vague traces of the prime shape on the one hand,and on the other evoking a completely new image, indepen-dent from the previous shaping steps. Just as the building isplaced near the Japanese, Saudi Arabian and Chinese pavi-lions, Korea “has been permeable to imported cultures andglobal influences, whose progressive mix defines contemporaryKorean society” (massstudies.com, 2010), explain Mass Studiesarchitects. Moreover, “using ‘convergence’ as the main theme,the Korea Pavilion is an amalgamation of ‘sign’ (symbol) and

Fig. 2 Scheme of the gradient from pure to intricate shapes.

395The image of the Shanghai 2010 Expo the contribution of single pavilions to Shanghai's global image

‘space’: Signs become spaces, and simultaneously, spacesbecome signs” (massstudies.com, 2010). Apart from the sym-bolic and sign references of the project, the architects createdexhibition spaces from the pavilion elements “so that thevisitors can experience their geometry through horizontal,vertical and diagonal movements” (massstudies.com, 2010).Moreover, a double use of sign-space emerges: The maingeometry is intended as a huge sign (a token from the Koreanalphabet) conceived to create exhibition spaces, and theexterior façade is clad with two types of panels referring tothe Han-geul alphabet and art pixels. An extreme dilatation ofoutward parts emerges in the Russian pavilion, where the purevolume increasingly disintegrates into several main subparts.The twelve concentric massive volumes – each housing adifferent program – provide an overall image of the pavilionwhich differs significantly from the original volume.

5.4. The sophisticated image

Still more possible leverage for building a public image hingeson the notion of beauty. Some pavilions have in common thesearch for a similar aesthetic value. Recent studies (Hekkertand Leder, 2008) have demonstrated that in the design ofproducts such as mobile phones or computers, preferences ortaste judgments obey certain rules or principles based onaesthetics, amongst other factors. It is also arguable that acommon pattern of design aesthetics may work for a globalaudience.6 Within this perspective of the possibility of a globaltaste in design, several pavilions seem to attempt to build alargely shared image. Like jewels, some buildings generateattention for their brilliance, their deep, smart complexity, ortheir deep, smart simplicity.

The UK's pavilion is undoubtedly in this group. As with theKorean pavilion, the British one seems to evince a belief inthe significance and importance of signs (seeds) in contem-porary society. The project is conceived as “an enclosurethat throws out from all faces a mass of long, radiating cilia,each ending with a tiny light source” (bdonline.co.uk,2010). The final effect is at the same time curious, subtleand elegant. The prickly element of the pavilion thateveryone notices at first sight is actually only a part of anunderground space which houses all the secondary func-tions, such as the café, lounge, offices and so on, organizedalong a pathway. The main volume or “The Seed Cathedral”is a box 15 m high and 10 m tall, whose boundaries areintersected by 60,000 identical rods of clear acrylic, 7.5 mlong. The rods extend both inward and outward with respectto the main envelope of the box. On the inside they create acurvaceous undulating surface, while on the outside the

6For a preliminary framework of product development for globalmarkets, see Suzan Boztepe, Toward a framework of productdevelopment for global markets: a user-value-based approach,Design Studies, Volume 28, Issue 5, September 2007, 513–533http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.010.

rods form a solid shape whose contours are undefined. Alongthose same lines, the program of Mexico's pavilion is placedunderground, with a series of multi-colored umbrellas creatinga pleasant surface for visitors to inhabit. The pavilion has adouble slope: The roof of the partially underground section isa sort of counter-slope canted against the top line of theumbrella system. While in the UK's pavilion the slickness of thedesign is a result of the material chosen for the rods and theiroverall configuration in the open space, in Mexico's thesimplicity of the chromatic values (high white posts in contrastto the green lawn and the reddish tones of the umbrellas)plays a crucial role.

The conception of a building as a beautiful object per secan also be realized through a solid shape whose aestheticcharacteristics rely not on the use of sophisticated materialsor construction techniques, but on the elegance of theobject itself. Another way of achieving slickness of design isembodied in the Austrian pavilion. Conceived as a shelterfor visitors and partially open in some areas, the pavilionplays with a contrast between white and glossy red clad-dings and dynamic shapes. The outer surface is modeledaround an internal spatiality, and the overall image ispartially achieved through the visual effects the geometrycreates. The rims of the surface are sharpened and roundedwith a small curvature in order to acquire an effect of edgesthat are sharp, yet smoothly finished. The gentle curvatureof the upper edges is obtained via a combination of obtuseand acute angles. The passage between the two types ofangles is dramatic, lending a certain dynamic to the overallshape. A similar dynamism may be observed in the Egyptianpavilion designed by ZahaHadid. It consists of a box withrounded corners and featuring a differentiation of materi-als, from a clean and pure light grey surface to highlyreflective black patterns running side to side. The entrancesare indicated by shapes based on inviting arches. Thecladding of the main envelope reflects natural light, produ-cing an irregular sheen which emphasizes the pavilion'scurved, smooth forms. The materials, reflections and mainenvelope contribute to this building's slick image.

5.5. Skins

A public image can be managed by developing the skin of thepavilion, in part to evoke national manufacturing expertise.In fact, some nations already have reputations as motherlandsof remarkable architects (and producers) with very high levelsof façade and surfaces technology. Architects in such a contextare able to conceive facades that behave as the skinsof buildings and confer upon them an external appearancewhich can change with variations in light or other contextualfactors. Some pavilions thus demonstrate their architecturallyadvanced skins to bolster the national image. France, forexample, addresses its pavilion to Chinese visitors, building itsconcept around “the city of the senses – taste, smell, touch,hearing and sight – senses shared by Western and Chinese

S. Carta396

sensibilities.” Conceived as a “prototype for tomorrow'smetropolis” and thought of as “a synthesis between nature,technical innovation and the pleasures of city living”, theFrench pavilion offers a series of experiences that differ basedon their materials, exhibitions and internal scenographies. Thetessellated structure of the outer shell of the pavilion isdetached outwards from the core of the building and createsa visual depth in the image of the overall structure. Naturallight can pass through the outer and inner facades, creating acomplex play of shades, while at night the artificial light frominside transforms the visual perception of the building,providing an utterly different reading. Complex and multiplereadings thus emerge of the same images in the same pavilion.

The Shanghai Corporate Pavilion also presents an externalskin that changes colors and lighting as the hours pass. Asthe architects explain, the pavilion's interior spaces,“shaped as a series of free, flowing forms, [are not only]enclosed by walls of the static kind but also a dense, cubicvolume of infrastructural network, including LED lights anda mist-making system, which are capable of changing theappearance of the building from one moment to another asprogrammed through a computer” (areachina.com, 2010).The richness of the materials and lighting constituting theouter facade results in the pavilion's de-materialization.The visual contradiction between the main cubic volumeand its blurred boundaries constitutes the building's image.Conceived as an “evocative, recognizable and memorablecultural ideogram,” the Polish pavilion's external surface isinspired by a traditional folk-art paper cut-out and isintended to directly stimulate visitors: “An exposition pieceof architecture will only be attractive insofar as it can offerperceptual sensations attainable only through direct, unme-diated exposure to out-of-the-ordinary, singular stimuli,insofar as it can provide a quality of experience born outof the chemistry of inter-sensory stimulation.” (wwaa.pl,2010) The goal of this pavilion is to offer a wise answerto the “abundance of visual experience, with the pictoriallanguage of communication reigning supreme, with the almostunconstrained and instant accessibility of iconographic mate-rial” (wwaa.pl, 2010).

The elaboration of the building's outer surface is alsotraceable in the Serbian contribution: a regular box-shapedpavilion with an external skin made of vari-colored ele-ments that trace a static pattern. Where the Serbianpavilion offers a public image of solid patterns in both itscolors and geometrical elements, Switzerland opts for amore sophisticated and elaborated skin. Dedicated to theExpo sub-theme of “rural–urban interaction” and conceivedas an irregular shape containing two cylinders, the outerskin of the pavilion is an “interactive intelligent façade.”The façade surrounds the pavilion like a “woven aluminumcurtain” and is made of “large polycarbonate discs with adiameter of approximately 20 cm fastened to the curtain'smesh”. The curtain façade is intended as a technologicalexposition of energy production: Each “element in thefaçade contains an energy generator, a storage mediumand an electrical load in the form of an LED.” The energyproduced is “rendered visible as white flashes, which aretriggered to react to the pavilion's changing surroundings,such as the sunshine and flashes from visitors' cameras.”The main goal of the Swiss pavilion is to show visitorsthis process of energy production via a renewable energy

resource and make them “aware of its existence,” but to doso on an emotional level. Visually speaking, one notes theintention to create perceptual depth between the externalfacade and the core of the building within. However, unlikethe French pavilion, the skin of the Swiss building presents avertical gradient of transparency controlled by the concen-tration of discs in the facade. The various levels oftransparency obtained by the use of the fine grain of amodular elements confers an overall complexity to thepavilion, triggering the visitor's perception of details.

5.6. The visual image of sustainability

Ideas for a sustainable urban environment may be visualizedvia a strong image. The Danish pavilion's aim was not topresent any technological or moral solutions for achieving a“better life”. Instead, it sought to provide a clear picture ofwhat the “better life” might be. The Danish pavilionpresented a parallel dimension in which people move bybike and swim in city rivers—two rather modest actions assimple as they are increasingly impossible in industrializedcities. The significance of the pavilion lies in its experienceand the image it conveys, rather than in its content. Thisimage emerges primarily via a spiral shape connecting aswimming pool on the ground level to the rooftop as acontinuous bike lane. The pavilion provides an array ofscenarios of quality urban life upon which visitors areinvited to reflect. The idea of sustainability as it relatesto the aesthetic appreciation of visitors in the Expo 2010 hasbeen explored by Zhe et al. (2011), who argued that theChina Pavilion epitomizes the successful combination ofaesthetic arts and the eco-culture of architecture. Thearchitectural features of the pavilion and the constructiontechniques it employs, they pointed out, “endowed thearchitecture with a sense of historic mission and responsi-bility” (Zhe et al., 2011).

5.7. The backdrop

The groups of pavilions here analyzed contribute differentlyto the creation of a sequence of images to which Expovisitors are exposed. While the majority of the pavilionsseek to evoke a clear image, the visual intentions of othersand their results are more problematic. Nevertheless, thecontribution of this last group to the overall image of theExpo as MEF is crucial. In fact, while not directly generatinghighly recognizable images, as a whole they constitute thebackground for the other pavilions. In the visual construc-tion of the Expo picture, the background role is twofold. Onthe one hand it provides a neutral perceptive surface whichallows the visitor to focus on other pavilions, and on theother hand it densifies the grain of the presences within theExpo, avoiding any “empty gaps”. The title of the Turkishpavilion, “The Cradle of Civilization” is a substantial clue inunderstanding Turkey's aim for the Expo. Considered one ofthe first human settlements ever, the “Catalhoyuk” (theoriginal Turkish name), was a center of advanced culture inthe Neolithic period. Since the entire pavilion is dedicatedto national and territorial ancient history, the overall imagethat the building offers is that of a net-shaped outside skinwith holes revealing an internal beige box. The materials

Table 1 Scheme of main visual characteristics for eachgroup of pavilions.

1 Bugs, animals and othericons

Enigmatic images based oncomplexity and ambiguity

2 Building upon localtraditions

Cultural tradition andinnovation

3 Investing in the evocativepower of solid geometry

Forms and geometry

397The image of the Shanghai 2010 Expo the contribution of single pavilions to Shanghai's global image

employed, the detailing of the facade and the large-scalepattern of holes keep the building from acquiring assophisticated an image as those of the UK or France. Nordoes the project offer ambiguity or ambivalence, as didRomania's. In terms of its proportions, it could fall into thegeometry leverage category (5.3), but the rough finish ofthe outer shell reveals no modification of the primaryvolume.

Hungary's pavilion is conceived around the “Gömböc,” amathematical model which “has a close ideological relationwith Yin Yang, both symbolizing the pursuit for harmony andbalance. This is what Hungarians wish to realize in urbandevelopment as well,” explain the architects. Although thepavilion creates a peculiar inner spatiality by means of thewooden parts hanging from the ceiling at varying heights,the overall image of the building seems not to fit into any ofthe categories proposed here. A similar argument can beapplied to the Germany+China House. In an attempt tocreate a “symbiosis of natural and high-tech materials” theGermany+China House pavilion tries to find a meeting pointbetween China and Germany through the use of a selectedmaterial: bamboo. “As a construction material, bamboo isespecially environmentally friendly and efficient in the useof resources.” In keeping with the slogan “Germany andChina – Moving Ahead Together”, bamboo – a material with arich tradition as a construction material in China – wasreportedly selected for this building as a challenge. Thepavilion is intended to demonstrate that the material is“mobile and recyclable, traditional and high-tech andfuturistic and multifunctional.” Bamboo also possesses “aunique charm”, says the designer and installation artist,Markus Heinsdorff.

The Monaco pavilion seems to focus on Monaco's geo-graphy, with the façade recalling the sun and the sea of thePrincipality. In addition to bringing an overview of Monacoto Shanghai through exhibitions illustrating the nation'scharacteristics or typical houses and streets, the pavilion'smain visual component is its façade, which emulates theeffect of rays of light reflected from water, in the manner ofbuildings close to the sea in the sunshine. This idea isrendered via a series of horizontal lagged bands which wrapthe pavilion's cubic volume. However, the materialization ofthe bands avoids a bluntly recognizable visual image as inthe case of Macau, China or the more subtle approach ofthe South Korea or UK pavilion, in which a required processof the signification of symbolic values is embedded in thefacade. Malaysia, by contrast, presents a tent-based struc-ture with four orthogonal directions, of which the upperpart emulates a typical fabric. The 3000 m2 pavilion isinspired by a traditional Malaysian hut, though on a hugescale. The image projected by this pavilion thus representsthe extreme case of a visual reference to a cultural elementof the represented nation.

4 The sophisticated image Elegance andsophistication

5 Skins Sophistication andawareness of the envelop

6 The visual image ofsustainability

The rendered image of abetter life

7 The backdrop The background and thecontrasting comparison

6. Renewal through the whole picture

Recent studies have demonstrated that the Expo as mega-event has proved a successful marketing strategy for theentire city of Shanghai, involving improvements at theterritorial and urban scales (Roche, 2000; Wu et al., 2007)and at the touristic and social levels, and has increased

community participation in the city's renewal (Lambertiet al., 2011; Richards and Wilson, 2004; Zeng, 2010). KeXueet al. (2012) offered concrete proof of this success whileanalyzing how the new image of the city has emerged,mainly by increasing international media attention: afterthe opening of the Shanghai Expo, international non-Chinese mainstream media coverage of Shanghai increasedsignificantly. The authors also related this quantitativeincrease to a change in the quality of the city image. Thecomparison of data before and after the 2010 Expo demon-strated that the subject of the international reports onShanghai changed from politics and law, resident life, artand culture and the macro economy, to business, infra-structure, urban construction, science, and the naturalenvironment, in addition to increasing coverage of the pre-vious categories. As consequence, the international main-stream media raised its positive evaluation of Shanghai'scity image. However, from an architectural perspective fewstudies have connected individual pavilions to the generalpicture the overall event generated, and more specificallyfew have addressed the quality of the image these archi-tectures convey.

Part 5 of this article has broken down the various nationalcontributions and their peculiar formal and aestheticvalues. This analysis of the single pavilions is summarizedin Table 1.

The projects in the first group (iconic pavilions) gearedthe overall picture towards an enigmatic complexity offorms and meanings, treating buildings as objects to beobserved and interpreted. The second group (local tradi-tion) leveraged inherited national features and sharedimages (e.g., landscapes, fabric patterns, common sharedimagery), and aimed to project the overall image of theExpo back in time to a preexisting collective imagery, withthe idea of exploiting what already exists that distinguisheseach nation. Hence, the overall image of the Expo becomesa sum of diverse tradition-related contributions. While thefirst group relies on a certain degree of complexity whichthe visitor is unable to understand at first glance, thusengaging in an interpretational process, the third group(solid geometry), simplifies the image. The use of basic solidvolumes (cubes, parallelepipeds) – albeit with their

S. Carta398

boundaries and shells further articulated – drives the overallimage of the Expo toward immediate recognition. The fourthgroup (sophisticated images) proposes a refined image throughselected materials, forms and techniques. The image of theExpo here proposed is that of a slick object, combining theideal of technological perfection with the attributes ofdryness, distance from visitors and effectiveness. The fifthgroup partially exploits the sophisticated imagery of thefourth, although via different architectural elements (in thiscase skins, envelopes and facades). In clear contrast with mostof the partial images promoted by the other groups, the sixthcategory (visual image of sustainability) alone proposes ahuman image based on physical experience, rather than on asophistication and interpretation that imply critical distance.The pavilions of this group intend to physically and visuallyengage visitors with the content and ideas behind the Expo, sothat they might experience them directly.

If one infers the overall picture to be a combination ofthe partial contributions of the individual pavilions, theresulting image is complex, sophisticated and technology-driven, both functionally and aesthetically. In fact, with theexception of groups 2 and 6 – which rely on low-techtechniques, tradition, or the physical experience of ideasto represent their various nations – the pavilions cumulativelypresent an image of the Expo as significantly advanced,technologically cutting-edge and so sophisticated as to bealmost untouchable.

7. Discussion

Expos have always reflected the society of a certain era.During the imperial and colonial periods the most powerfulnations displayed the novelties coming from the colonies,from elephant tusks to actual Senegalese persons, displayedin a copy of a village. Similarly, during the industrialrevolution, technological progresses were the main prota-gonists. The same happened throughout the entire historyof the Expo, from the interval between the two world warsto the period of reconstruction starting from the MarshallPlan and so on to 2010. However, apart from the maininterest and goals of the host nations in demonstrating theirpower and various achievements, or even pursuing the otherpurposes mentioned above, always there has been anelement that resisted the passage of time. Sometimes itwas a building, like the Crystal Palace (destroyed but stillexisting in our memories and history books as a remarkableexample) or a park and city area, such as the area of theTrocadéro in Paris, or even a folly, such as the Tour Eiffel orthe Atomium. In the most fortunate cases, architects madepavilions that serve as guides and references for generationsof designers. Other pavilions have become a quite clearmanifesto of the architecture of their time. By contrast, thepavilions of the Shanghai Expo took a substantially differentdirection characterized by a holistic reading.

This study has demonstrated that an analysis of individualnational pavilions may yield misleading conclusions withregard to the image each conveys. In some cases thearchitectural concept is weakly explained and does notserve the purpose of bolstering Shanghai's internationalreputation. The Italian pavilion is meant to be “the startof the Chinese game pick-up-sticks, also known in Italy as

the Shanghai Game, where a number of sticks are thrown ina random pile” (expo-magazine.com). Spain offered wickeras a material symbolic of future collaboration with China.Luxembourg translated its name into Chinese and came upwith “lusenbao”, meaning “forest and fortress,” whichostensibly became the inspiration for their pavilion. Mexicothought of the kite as a “union between Mexican andChinese cultures” and aligned its pavilion in that direction.The remarkable shape of the Egyptian pavilion – except forits main sign in white on a black background on the façade –

provides no reference to Egyptian culture, tradition ortechnological achievement. Some critics (Glancey, 2010)have characterized UK's pavilion as an “alluring nothing” ascompared to British pavilions of the past (especially history'sfirst).

The real contribution of architecture to the 2010 Expoemerges in the perspective of the overall picture Shanghaieventually succeeded in bringing to the world's attention.As Xue et al., 2012 showed, the Expo enhanced the city'sinternational reputation on the global stage. Moreover,formal analysis of the pavilions produces an overall imageof technology, sophistication and cold perfection. Associat-ing this picture with the main theme of the Expo, “BetterCity Better Life”, makes clear the light in which this themewas approached by the architecture and architects of theExpo. Facing the challenge of materializing concepts andproposals for a “better life” which starts from a “better city”,the pavilions respond with forms, spaces and materials whicheventually result in a slick technological image that is positiveand hopeful with regard to Shanghai's attempts at urbanrenewal.

This interpretation of the overall picture of the Expo issupported by Madden (2012), who has argued that contraryto the common approach at world fairs of pursuing nationalpromotion along with displays of contemporary technology,the Shanghai Expo “was perhaps unique in the extent towhich it linked the themes of urbanization and planetaryexistence with the promotion of a supposedly benign urbantechno-utopia”. Moreover, Madden added that the finalpicture conveyed of the “better life” hinges on the ideathat “technology and density will carry humanity forward toa harmonious future, to a world that will be interconnectedeven as it will continue to be structured by walls andbarriers. It suggested that the horizon of politics lies in thedevelopment of progressively smarter solutions by an alli-ance of business, science, and authoritarian state and citygovernments” (Madden, 2012, p. 13). The “better city” ishence considered a goal to be achieved through the rigorousimplementation of systematic approaches. Houdart (2012)depicted this intention in her analysis of the “Urban BestPractice Area” (UBPA), characterizing World Expo 2010s ideaof rethinking the future city as a central problem. As such,future cities demand a scientific approach via analysis ofeffective urban practices and policies. In this regard,Houdart pointed to the UBPA exhibition in the Expo 2010of the “simulated city”, in which in-vitro portions of publicand private spaces around the world are physically simu-lated through scaled mock-ups. The quality of hope andtrust in a technology-driven future embodied in the finalglobal image of the Expo 2010 and other mega-eventshas been described by Astrid Nordin in association withBaudrillard's simulacra. She argued that the Expo 2010

399The image of the Shanghai 2010 Expo the contribution of single pavilions to Shanghai's global image

“was constructed as a simulacrum of the world in ways thatmix dreams with truth claims (and the claims that thedreams are indeed the true dreams of humanity and thatthese dreams will come true)” (Nordin, 2012).

In conclusion, this study suggests one should regard theindividual architectural contributions to the Expo (the pavi-lions) not as projects per se in terms of any correspondencebetween the architecture and the content or the national ideathe architecture may represent, but as indivisible parts of awhole. Unlike past Expos, in which pavilions competed todisplay the latest discoveries or achievements of variousnations, the pavilions of the 2010 Expo all contribute to thecreation of a general picture of the contemporary and futureShanghai, now able to establish itself on the global stage as anadvanced, sophisticated and productive reality. The technolo-gical display which has historically characterized Expos world-wide has definitively shifted from the scale of single nationsand cultures to the city level, with the city portrayed as aglobal entity. Considered individually, the pavilions offer nosense per se of the global scale and are emptied of peculia-rities in deference to construction of a global image. To thisextent, the pavilions, taken individually, are indeed a simula-crum of the human technological dream.

References

areachina.com (2010). Quotation from the Architects:, Retrieved2013, February 25 from ⟨http://www.areachina.com/mixinfo/archive-228.html⟩.

bdonline.co.uk (2010). Quotation from the Architects:, Retrieved2013, February 25 from ⟨http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/2010-expo-designs-on-course-to-produce-a-shanghai-surprise/3092653⟩.

Benson, C. (Ed.), John Murray, London.Deng, Y., 2013. Conceptualizing mega-event flagships—a case study

of China Pavilion of Expo 2010 Shanghai China. Frontiers ofArchitectural Research 2 (1), 107–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2012.11.004.

(Deng deepened this point in) Deng, Y., Poon, S.W., 2011. Mega-challenges for mega-event flagships. Architectural Engineeringand Design Management 7 (1), 23–37.

Deng, Y., Poon, S.W., 2012. Expo 2010 Shanghai China—a signaturechapter of the Huangpu River fronts Trilogy. Journal of PlaceManagement and Development 5 (2), 174–191.

expo-magazine.com (2010). The Official Website of Mass StudiesArchitects, Retrieved 2012, May 1 from ⟨http://www.expo-magazine.com/inside.asp?p=273⟩.

finlandatexpo2010.fi (2010). Retrieved 2013, February 26 from⟨http://www.finlandatexpo2010.fi/pavilion⟩.

Getz, D., 1991. Festivals, Special Events and Tourism. van NostrandReinhold, New York.

Glancey, J. Shanghai Architecture Expo: An Empty Experience? TheGuardian, 5 May 2010.

Goldblatt, J., Nelson, K.S., 2001. The International Dictionary ofEvent Management. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Greenhalgh, P., 1993. The tradition of Expositions Universelles, inThe Panoramic Dream. Antwerp and the World Exhibitions 18851894, 1930 (Antwerpen).

happystreet.nl (2010). From the Official Website of the Dutch at the2010 Shanghai Expo, Retrieved 2013, February 26 from ⟨http://www.happystreet.nl/⟩.

Hekkert, P., Leder, H., 2008. 10—Product Aesthetics, Product Experi-ence, Hendrik N.J. Schifferstein and Paul Hekkert, San Diego. pp.259–285 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045089-6.50013-7.

hha.no (2010). The Official Website of Helen and Hard Architects,Retrieved 2013, February 26 from ⟨http://www.hha.no/projects/norway_pavilion/⟩.

Houdart, S., 2012. A city without citizens, The 2010 Shanghai WorldExpo as a temporary city. City, Culture and Society 3 (2012),127–134.

Jencks, C., 2005. The Iconic Building. Frances Lincoln, London.Jing, N., Rong, L., 2010. City marketing from the perspective of

Shanghai World Expo. In: Proceedings of 2010 InternationalConference on Management Science and Engineering, ICMSEM2010.

Lamberti, Lucio, Noci, Giuliano, Guo, Jurong, Zhu, Shichang, 2011.Mega-events as drivers of community participation in developingcountries: the case of Shanghai World Expo. Tourism Manage-ment 32 (6), 1474–1483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.12.008.

Law, C., 1993. Urban Tourism: Attracting Visitors to Major Cities.Mansell, London.

Madden, D.J., 2012. City Becoming World: Nancy, Lefebvre, and theGlobal–Urban Imagination, Environment and Planning D: Societyand Space 2012, volume 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/d17310.

massstudies.com (2010). The Official Website of Mass Studies Archi-tects, Retrieved 2013, February 26 from ⟨www.massstudies.com/projects/expo_txtEN.htm⟩.

mirallestagliabue.com (2010). The Official Website of Miralles TagliabueArchitects, Retrieved 2013, February 26 from ⟨http://www.mirallestagliabue.com/⟩.

Nordin, A.H.M., 2012. Taking Baudrillard to the Fair: exhibitingChina in the World at the Shanghai Expo. Alternatives: Global,Local, Political 2012 37, 106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0304375412444816.

Richards, G., Wilson, J., 2004. The impact of cultural events on cityimage: Rotterdam, cultural capital of Europe 2001. UrbanStudies, 41; 1931–1951.

Robertson, M., Guerrier, Y., 1998. Events as entrepreneurial dis-plays: Seville, Barcelona and Madrid. In: Tyler, D., Guerrier, Y.,Robertson, M. (Eds.), Managing Tourism in Cities. John Wiley andSons, Chichester, pp. 215–228.

Roche, M., 2000. Mega-events Modernity. Olympics and Expos in theGrowth of Global Culture. Routledge, London. New York.

thepeopleofpakistan.wordpress.com (2010). Description of theArchitects, Retrieved 2013, February 26 from ⟨http://thepeopleofpakistan.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/pakistan-pavilion-at-expo-2010-shanghai/⟩.

Venturi, R., Scott Brown, Denise, Izenour, Steven, 1977. Learningfrom Las Vegas, The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form.The MIT Press.

Waitt, G., 2003. Social impacts of the Sydney Olympics. Annals ofTourism Research 30 (1), 194–215.

worldexpo2010shanghai.blogspot.nl (2010). Retrieved 2013, February26 from ⟨http://worldexpo2010shanghai.blogspot.nl/search/label/Iceland⟩.

Wu, F., Xu, J., Yeh, A.G.O., 2007. Urban Development in Post-Reform China: State, Market, and Space. Routledge, London.

wwaa.pl (2010). Official Description of the Project: Retrieved 2013,February 25 from ⟨http://www.wwaa.pl/en/works/POLISH-PAVILION⟩.

Xue, K., Chen, X., Yu, M., 2012. Can the World Expo change a city'simage through foreign media reports? Public Relations Review 38(5), 746–754. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.06.013.

Zeng, Q., 2010. Focus on livable cities: concern with harmonicdevelopment—summary of the Expo 2010 Shanghai China. A+U:Architecture and Urbanism 2010 7, 10.

Zhe, W., Li, Z., Jing, S., 2011. On the beauty of Green Expoarchitecture and sustainable development-taking “China Pavi-lion”. As An Example, Procedia Engineering 21 (2011), 163–167http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2000.