The spectacle of NMM

Abstract
The principal argument of this chapter is that the complex of techniques and political agencies defined with the term spectacle, which determines a specific form of spatial practice identified as spectacular urbanism, represents in fact one of the main features of the New Metropolitan Mainstream object of this book. The conscious domination of spectacular techniques refined by entertainment and advertisement industries is integrated in current neoliberal development process. Image production has become an essential component of spatial production and a mean of political and economic control over space. In setting comparison of case studies deriving from the NMM mappings we identified a range of phenomena which show the emergence of such a spectacular character, roughly divided in four typologies reflecting main analytical categories defined in the NMM mapping process: heritage spectacularisation (historical reconstruction), functional spectacularisation (Flagship projects), temporal spectacularisation (Olympics and other events) and lifestyle spectacularisation (Trendy neighbourhoods).

In the following text, the first section will retrace a brief historical excursus on the concept of spectacle applied to urbanism; in the second we propose a general understanding of spectacular urbanism as a fundamental character of contemporary neoliberal processes and an essential component of the new metropolitan Mainstream; therefore, a section for each of the above identified categories of spectacular urbanism will discuss examples deriving from the NMM mapping process in the cities of Florence, Berlin, Istanbul, Athens, Medellin, Toronto, Zurich (Belgrade); finally, in the last section we will attempt at a critical discussion of similarities and divergencies emerging from the examples, and an overall reflection on lesson learned from the comparison. Historical overview

Spectacle in the age of NMM
While the term spectacle is strongly associated with Debord’s work and perspective, encompassing his specific lecture of late capitalism, we want to propose here a fairly nuanced and open use of the terms spectacularization and spectacular urbanism to grasp the process of ontological entwining of spatial and image production processes becoming increasingly relevant in the development of the new metropolitan Mainstream. This understanding is in no way contradictory to a Debordian interpretation of urban capitalism, but it leaves space to different epistemological approaches to the matter, aimed at preserving the openness and multiplicity of perspectives in the NMM conversation developed within the INURA.

The process of spectacularisation of the urban transformation at a planetary scale finds a specific turning point around the eighties of the Twentieth century in combination with a series of epochal benchmarks variously identified as the postmodern turn (Jameson), the neoliberal resurgency (Harvey) the rise of symbolic economies (Lash & Urry) the shift into the informational paradigm (Castells). All such epistemological apparatuses imply some evident relation with the increasing spectacularisation of (urban) politics and policy, encompassing the fundamental role of image production, discursive practices and media management in determining economic, social, political and spatial transformation. Connected with the explosion of communication technologies and channels, the pervasiveness of media in the everyday life practice of citizens contributes to boost the discursive nature of spatial production (Tripodi 2009). It is hard to disentangle image and spatial production as separate processes when the management and control of media channels and public discourse assume such a centrality in creating and extracting value from space. The financialisation of the economy in itself can be read as a process in which production and extraction of value is increasingly determined by the capacity to dominate imagery over materiality. Among the most typical image production process that influence spatial development we count spatial branding, viral marketing strategies, augmentation of spatial practice into the digital social sphere, festivalisation processes, Olympics and other mayor important sport events. Communication and visualization techniques and creative competences deriving directly from the entertainment industrial sector pervade spatial production, as the concept of Archistar itself illustrates (La Cecla). Corporations grounded in entertainment and communication like Viacom / Warner Bros, CGDecaux, and even the ubiquitous Google have become influential players in the urban development sector (Tripodi 2008). The recent bursting out of web 2.0 companies like Air BnB and Uber in the housing and mobility market only confirm how media enterprises can drastically affect urban development and economies. Commodification of space, transformation of public space in a “space of exposure” dedicated to visual consumption and subsequent exclusionary patterns eroding the right to the city, are related effects of such trends.

In setting a synthetic comparison of case studies deriving from the NMM mappings we scoped a wide range of phenomena which show the emergence such spectacular character of contemporary spatial production, identifying four main phenomenological categories:

•	Heritage spectacularisation: it is the deployment of manufactured historical identities as factors of spatial development, connected with massive rhetorical and ideological apparatuses disguising underlying business interests: (NMM categories Historical reconstruction, urban regeneration projects).

•	Functional spectacularisation: image production and marketing of big infrastructural projects and architectural exceptionalities (emergencies, centralities). E.G. BDC and flagship projects designed by starchitects and devising complex strategic partnerships to attract and concentrate capitals on spectacular development projects. (Typically referring to the categories Flagship projects on our maps)

•	Temporal spectacularisation: the construction of intensified spectacular moments, as Olympics and sport events, culture capital programs and the like to concentrate on specific temporal horizons the investment process necessary to exceptional spatial developments.

•	Lifestyle spectacularisation: the viral strategies ranging from strategic top down marketing action to more spontaneous or distributed pioneering processes creating the hype on certain areas, determining the trendiness of neighbourhoods and steering regeneration, gentrification and social polarization of potential valuable areas of investment; planning strategic developments of new exclusive residential areas. (trendy neighbourhoods)

The edges between these categories are blurred, often one leading strategy driving the development of a range of synergic projects and correlated effects. In the following we are confronting some typical cases derived from the NMM survey.

Spectacularising Heritage

 * Florence, the historical centre as a leisure district, museification, tourism as leading economy.
 * Berlin, reconstruction of the Schloss,
 * Istanbul, Gezi park
 * Athens

Functional Spectacularisation

 * Florence
 * Zurich
 * Athens
 * Medellin
 * Toronto

Temporal Spectacularisation

 * Athens (Olympics legacy)
 * Florence (Festivalisation)
 * Berlin (Festivalisation, campaign/struggle against next Olympics)

Lyfestyle spectacularisation

 * Berlin (Neukolln)
 * Toronto (Condominium boom)
 * Zürich