Illustrated by Selina Jiang
In April 2025, I spent an eventful 36 hours in Paris. The city was enjoyable, beautiful, and well-maintained. On one hand, that shouldn’t have surprised me; Paris is the City of Lights and of Love, romanticized across the globe. On the other hand, I had been warned for years of streets filled with litter and unpleasant scents that wafted through the arrondissements. But I found public spaces filled with life and streets lined with greenery that brought both a calmness and much-appreciated fresh air. The Paris I discovered was not the Paris I had expected.
In August 2025, I moved to Rome for a semester. I’d been acquainted with its charming chaos and gritty nature while on a family vacation years prior. Graffiti marked the walls of its colourful buildings, and the city’s timeless landmarks had seen better days. This time around, with my newly-minted Italian visa in hand, I was once again surprised. The iconic Trevi Fountain was spotless and the cobblestone streets were free of any garbage. Even the notorious graffiti was difficult to spot in the city centre. This was not the Rome I remembered, but it was a Rome I warmly welcomed.
Why such a marked difference between my expectations and experiences? What conditions created this disparity? Keen observers will notice that I visited Paris shortly before the 2024 Summer Olympics, and my Italian semester abroad occurred during the 2025 Jubilee Year of Hope, a year of pilgrimage that saw Catholics flocking to the Eternal City.
It turns out that my surprise was linked to these events. Paris and Rome had both spent massive sums of money (to the tune of several billion euros) to improve their cities. Even stereotypical French bureaucracy and Italian corruption could not hinder the progress. Mega-events provided the political, social, and economic impetus to make cities beautiful. Infrastructure upgrades, pedestrianization, greening, and large-scale clean-ups coincided to turn deteriorating urban spaces into some of the most desirable destinations for locals and visitors alike.
My musings led me down a path of further inquiry. Paris and Rome were far from the only cities to have undertaken significant improvement initiatives in preparation for major public events. Municipal governments around the world have recognized that beautiful cities make for happier and healthier people, and wished to convey that impression to the crowds headed their way. Beautification spurred by mega-events provides numerous health, economic, social, and environmental benefits, although a closer look reveals a hidden dark side of displacement of vulnerable populations and oftentimes ballooning costs. Beautiful cities are good for people, and mega-events often prompt initiatives that enhance the urban landscape in pursuit of this goal. The critical question then becomes why hosting a major event seems to be a necessary prerequisite to these improvements. Should the residents of a city be able to enjoy the beauty of the place they call home, regardless of the circumstances?
The Beautiful City and the City Beautiful
Beauty is a loaded term. Common adages suggest its subjectivity, claiming it rests in the eye of the beholder. When it comes to cities, this is much harder to prove. What makes a city beautiful? City beautification plans emphasize cleanliness, greenery, well-kept buildings, interesting streetscapes, ornamentation, artistic designs, controlled noise and smell, and a host of other interventions that improve the urban environment. One would be hard pressed to find a person who does not prefer clean public spaces, trash-free streets, well-maintained infrastructure, and nature-filled neighbourhoods. Indeed, the more scenic a place is, whether natural or built-up, the happier people are in that environment. Residents take great pride in the areas they call home when they are well-managed, clean, and ultimately, beautiful. This was recognized by proponents of the City Beautiful, an urban planning movement that took hold in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century. Advocates believed that beautifying cities would lead to greater civic pride and community engagement while also reducing social troubles. The movement’s core ideas emphasized architectural beauty most prominently, but also recognized that main streets, public parks, and green space play a significant role. This belief is seemingly corroborated by modern scientific research, finding that greening public spaces reduces crime and vandalism, while simultaneously increasing exercise and mental health.
While the City Beautiful movement waned in the mid 20th-century following the First World War and the Great Depression, many of its underlying principles remain popular today, with the rise of organizations such as the Congress for New Urbanism, Project for Public Spaces, and Strong Towns. Programs intended to beautify the urban environment provide benefits often that go beyond what can be reasonably quantified. After all, it is difficult to quantify the pleasure of a stroll down a pedestrianized main street, with blooming flowers and a warm summer breeze blowing amidst the animated chatter of diners at restaurant patios. Despite the substantial upside, implementing these beautification principles involves considerable amounts of time and effort. What leads a city to make the changes?
Welcoming Guests on a Mega-Scale
Mega-events are generally defined as large-scale gatherings with “the potential to significantly impact the host city, both positively and negatively.” These events, such as the Olympic Games, G20 Leaders’ Summit, or FIFA World Cup, frequently spur significant capital spending into urbanist undertakings, a phenomenon known as event-led urbanism. Cities from Paris to Rome to San Francisco to New Delhi have recently hosted athletic, political, and religious mega-events that were marked by ambitious clean-up endeavours. After all, who would choose to welcome guests into a dirty home?
The efforts of these metropolises spanned from commissioning artists to create eye-catching murals on grimy urban facades before welcoming G20 leaders to India, to purifying the notoriously polluted river Seine for Olympic races, in which swimming had been banned for a century due to pollution. San Francisco went as far as pressure-washing its sidewalks ahead of the 2023 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders’ Meeting, and Rome undertook a staggering 3,200 public construction works before Pope Francis opened the Holy Door of St. Peter’s Basilica. These projects, propelled forward by mega-events, are all laudable. The transformative effect of these events is recognized by host cities and event organizations alike, whether the support came financially, politically, or through the pressure of a looming deadline. The International Olympics Committee (IOC) credited its titular event for a large portion of the river’s revival. Tania Braga, the IOC Head of Legacy, stated that “the reopening of the Seine is a reminder that the Olympic Games are not just about sport - they are about transformation,” a sentiment echoed by the French capital’s mayor, Anne Hidalgo. Likewise, Mayor Roberto Gualtieri of Rome viewed the Jubilee upgrades as “an unmissable opportunity” that would “transform Rome” and result in “a more sustainable, inclusive and innovative city that enhances its extraordinary heritage.”City leadership in San Francisco projected that APEC would generate nearly $73 million CAD in business activity for the battered local economy. Atishi Marlena, then Delhi’s Minister of Public Works, praised the “stunning transformation” and emphasized the current administration’s commitment to ensuring this beauty beyond the G20 summit. There is no doubt that mega-events were the catalyst for widespread renewal across these four cities, but this approach was not immune to criticism.
The Ugly Side of Beautification
Amidst the event-fuelled city transformations, governments drew criticism for a perceived deprioritization of their existing residents, amongst other issues such as displacement of vulnerable populations or sky-high budgets. Many San Franciscans criticized their government for only making efforts to solve the city’s chronic homelessness and drug use problems when welcoming foreign dignitaries. In the words of one disgruntled resident, “if the city is able to create an illusion that it’s clean and runs effectively and humans are in shelters, even if it’s just for APEC, why is that not sustainable for the longer term?” The backlash even reached California Governor Gavin Newsom, who admitted that the cleanup was because of the “fancy leaders [...] coming into town.” The San Francisco Standard likened the efforts to a “party host frantically tidying the house before important guests arrive.” Meanwhile in Paris, more than 30 years prior to the 2024 Olympics, former French President Jacques Chirac had vowed to clean-up the Seine so he could swim in it. Progress stalled over the next three decades until the Olympics accelerated the project’s completion, with Mayor Anne Hidalgo describing it as “a kind of magnet that attracted all our energies towards a single date.”
It's fair to say that many of these projects would not have happened (at least, not on schedule) were it not for the mega-events prompting them. It is also fair to ask that if cities were always capable of making these changes, why now? Governments evidently knew the importance of beautification and the lasting positive impact it would have on their cities. So why were mega-events intended for millions of guests, from football fans to diplomats, the catalyst for this urban renewal? Why do only visitors merit the spotless streets and spruced-up buildings? Should ordinary residents be able to reap the countless benefits of beautification when it is their taxes that fund the city? If the city can create a beautiful, safe, and livable environment for visitors, it can surely do so for its own. Who is the city really meant to serve?
Who The City is Meant to Serve
The International City Management Association (ICMA), founded in 1914, was created with the aim of supporting the new profession of local government management. While it began in the United States and Canada, the ICMA’s membership has now expanded to include 13,000 local government professionals worldwide. The ICMA Code of Ethics, adopted in 1924, serves as “the foundation for the [...] profession” and guides leaders and managers in their role. Tenet 4 of the Code of Ethics declares that members are bound to “serve the best interests of all community members.” The organization’s Declaration of Ideals lays out its commitment to improving “the quality of life for the individual and the community,” and indicates that its members “dedicate themselves to the faithful stewardship of the public trust.”As public servants, their mandate, self-evidently, is to serve the public.
This mandate also finds its support in the Canadian legal framework. Section 2 of the Province of Ontario’s 2001 Municipal Act highlights the municipality’s purpose of “providing good government,” while section 244(a) indicates the council’s role to “represent the public and to consider the well-being and interests of the municipality.” Even federal statute describes this purpose in section 266.1(d) of the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, Chapter 32: to “foster activities that enhance the economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality and its residents.”
Beyond the obligations of provincial and federal law, cities also expect this of themselves. The City of Toronto’s stated mission is to “serve a great city and its people.” The New York City Charter’s preamble details the city’s effort to “ensure that every person who resides in New York City has the opportunity to thrive [...].”
Even global institutions articulate this duty. The Istanbul Declaration on Human Settlements and the Habitat Agenda, which was signed at the 1996 United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, makes a poignant call to action in paragraph 5. In stating that “our cities must be places where human beings lead fulfilling lives in dignity, good health, safety, happiness and hope,” member states acknowledge the profound impact cities have on their residents.
The international order, various levels of law, and the profession’s own association recognize the raison d’être of a municipality: to serve its public and provide the best quality of life possible. Beautification has limitless desirable ramifications that improve the well-being of the community, from uplifting moods to reducing incidences of disease to increasing social cohesion and even boosting retail sales. Cities undertake these significant improvement initiatives in preparation for mega-events (even if the methods do not always produce the best long-term results for citizens). If a city is meant to give its people a good life, beautification is a clear path to doing so. Public servants move mountains to make these transformations happen ahead of mega-events, but why do they not attempt to beautify the city ordinarily?
Cities have proved they have the technological capacity to complete these beautification projects, but it is ultimately the political will that is lacking. Residents are well-justified in asking why municipal leaders, charged with serving them and improving their well-being, do not find the political will to make these changes during ordinary times. Perhaps it’s too costly or unpopular or ranks low on the list of priorities. Ultimately, though, a livable city is what dwellers are owed.
The Clean, Green, and Pristine Path Forward
While there are many ways to approach beautification outside the mega-event context, a meaningful and effective approach is to involve the residents whom it will impact. Resident-led beautification connects people to their communities and improves relations between government and constituents. As one participant in the Chicago Large Lots Program stated, “What a powerful difference the lot has made on the block. It’s about beautification where people know that good things are possible. We’re not just bottom-feeders who live here. [...] It’s become theirs and they treat it like theirs.” The Large Lots program was a neighbourhood stabilization initiative where city-owned land was sold for $1 a parcel to those who owned property on the street, and many lots were subsequently beautified, used as gardens, and so on. Resident-led improvements also enhance the self-efficacy of participants, helping the perception that they have the power to directly effectuate change in their surroundings. This ideal is the mission of several impactful organizations. One prominent group is Keep America Beautiful, a national non-profit that encourages “people to take action every day to improve and beautify their community environment.”
In practice at the local level, this could be establishing neighbourhood beautification programs or clean-up initiatives. Detroit’s Neighbourhood Beautification Program provides grants ranging from $500 to $15,000 to local associations and organizations to carry out projects that fall into three dedicated categories: community gardens, public space improvements, and clean-up. Mary Sheffield, City Council President, praised the program in declaring that it is “proof that when we invest directly in our residents, they create projects that reflect the pride, creativity, and resilience of Detroit.”Another such example is Toronto's annual Keep Toronto Beautiful cleaning blitz, of which the stated goal is to ensure public spaces are “clean, safe, and well-maintained.” Hundreds of City staff come together to improve areas that are in high need by removing litter and graffiti, repairing bike lanes and potholes, and installing increased garbage and recycling bins, amongst many others. The inaugural 2025 blitz saw 2,500 kilometres of city roads swept, equivalent to the distance from Toronto to Winnipeg. Mayor Olivia Chow recognized that beautiful public spaces have a wide-reaching impact, stating that “when our public spaces are clean, safe and welcoming, we all benefit.” International programs such as Clean Up the World and World Cleanup Day encourage individuals, groups, and businesses alike to clean and preserve their environment. Participants are supported by guidance and resources from the overarching organizations.
From an economic development standpoint, the creation of a Business Improvement Area (BIA) also presents an opportunity to maintain beautiful shopping streets, backed by local businesses and community leaders. The world’s first BIA was formed in Bloor West Village, the result of legislation passed in Ontario in 1970. In a BIA, tenants, property owners, and businesspeople come together to enhance, revitalize and beautify their local business district. With support from the municipality and oversight by a management board, important work is carried out that subsequently improves and promotes the respective area. The concept has expanded well beyond Toronto, with thousands of communities globally creating their own BIA.
Lasting Beauty
When municipal resources, political will, and community involvement join forces, beautiful changes take place. This powerful coalition was responsible for the pleasure I experienced whilst walking along the tree-lined Seine, and for the chance I had to gaze mesmerized at the pearly white Trevi Fountain. More importantly, Parisians and Romans had the ability to enjoy those too, long after I’d boarded a plane across the Atlantic. It shouldn’t have taken massive events for those transformations to happen. Instead, beautification should be undertaken for the wellbeing of residents, who experience the joys and sorrows and beauty of life within the city’s perimeters. Beautiful, livable cities are for all.