The Formula 1 World Championship returns this weekend to its iconic street circuit in Monaco for the sixth round of the 2018 season. As the third temporary track event of the year, the Monaco Grand Prix highlights a growing trend that could see even more urban races join the calendar, with Liberty Media actively pursuing new venues like Miami for the 2019 F1 season and beyond.

However, this increasing focus on expanding the calendar with numerous street circuits raises critical questions about Formula 1’s ability to establish a lasting presence and meaningful legacy in new territories. As F1 considers a host of similar temporary venues, there’s a tangible risk of turning away from the foundational benefits offered by permanent circuits. @DieterRencken critically analyzes the potential dangers of this strategic shift and its long-term implications for the sport.

The Imperative of Legacy: Learning from Global Sports

“Olympic legacy is the result of a vision. It encompasses all the tangible and intangible long-term benefits initiated or accelerated by the hosting of the Olympic Games/sport events for people, cities/territories and the Olympic Movement.” This profound definition, outlined in the International Olympic Committee (IOC) guidelines, underscores a commitment to enduring impact beyond the immediate spectacle.

When assessing bids from prospective host cities, the IOC meticulously evaluates the legacy that the Games would leave, long after the athletes have departed and daily life returns to normal for citizens. This comprehensive assessment considers the profound disruptions often faced by local populations during such massive events. A similar stringent process is followed by FIFA when awarding the World Cup to a country or region. The IOC’s seven primary evaluation elements are:

• Organized sports development
• Economic value and brand equity
• Social development through sport
• Human skills, networks, and innovation
• Culture and creative development
• Environment enhancement
• Urban development

Formula 1’s Shifting Priorities: From Heritage to Haste

Formula 1, now under the stewardship of Liberty Media, owners of Formula One Management, prides itself on being a premier global sporting spectacle, often seen by many as surpassing others due to its continuous, captivating sporting narrative. Yet, when it comes to evaluating prospective Grand Prix venues, F1’s evaluation process appears starkly limited. The primary concerns seem to revolve around just two elements: how much money can be extracted from potential promoters, and how quickly these lucrative deals can be secured. This narrow focus stands in stark contrast to the holistic legacy considerations of other major sporting bodies.

The Enduring Value of Permanent Circuits

For permanent racing circuits, legacy programs are inherently simpler and more organic to implement. The very existence of these dedicated facilities naturally fosters local, regional, and national motorsport events. Track days, advanced driver courses, and various automotive experiences become commonplace, nurturing talent and passion at grassroots levels. Over time, these venues often diversify, accommodating other sporting genres such such as cycling, jogging, and even golf in some instances. Furthermore, their large-scale infrastructure makes them ideal hosts for music festivals, conventions, and other major crowd-pulling events, contributing significantly to regional economies and cultural vibrancy long after F1 has left.

Consider the impact: would national racing thrive in Malaysia without the Sepang circuit, or in China without Shanghai’s mammoth facility? What about India without the presence of the now ill-fated Buddh Circuit? While motorsport might exist in some form, there is no doubt that these purpose-built venues left indelible impressions on countless youngsters. They were enthralled by the spectacle of Grand Prix cars racing on their “home soil,” inspired by the dream of competing on the very same tarmac as legends like Michael Schumacher, Lewis Hamilton, and other racing heroes. These circuits become tangible landmarks for sporting aspiration and development.

The Ephemeral Nature of Street Circuits

In stark contrast, street circuits—even those with a semi-permanent nature such as Melbourne’s Albert Park and Montreal’s Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, nestled on Île Notre-Dame in the Saint Lawrence Seaway—by their very design, leave no such enduring legacies. How can they, when the entire temporary infrastructure, from barriers to grandstands, is ripped down on Monday morning—often at enormous cost—and stored until the following year? The fleeting nature of these events means there’s no physical facility or permanent foundation to build upon for local motorsport or community engagement.

Baku provides a perfect illustration of this transient model. After one high-profile weekend per year, indulged in at a reported cost of no less than $100 million per event for the benefit of approximately 30,000 live spectators and a global TV audience, motorsport is all but forgotten in a country whose economic fortunes largely rest on fossil fuels. There’s minimal, if any, lasting engagement or development beyond the annual spectacle, raising serious questions about the return on investment for the host city.

Thus, F1’s sudden rush to attract and secure more street circuits under Liberty Media’s leadership raises profound questions about the sport’s long-term legacy, particularly in regions where minimal existing motorsport facilities are present, such as emerging markets like Vietnam. The focus seems to be on short-term financial gains rather than cultivating a sustainable, rooted presence.

Case Studies: The Perils of Urban Racing

Even in countries with a rich motorsport heritage, the allure of street races persists. In Germany, for instance, despite the existence of numerous world-class permanent circuits, there’s been discussion about a street Grand Prix in Berlin. A compelling argument could certainly be made that the substantial public funds required for such an endeavor would be better spent on improving existing facilities like Hockenheim or, crucially, on reducing prohibitive hosting fees to ensure their sustainability. As revealed here last week, F1 faces the real prospect of losing both Hockenheim and the Nürburgring unless a more sustainable financial model for the German Grand Prix can be secured. Sustainability, it bears repeating, is a core pillar of the IOC’s legacy program.

Consider Copenhagen: Denmark currently boasts only one permanent circuit, the 2.3-kilometre Jyllandsringen, located approximately three hours west of the capital. Rather than investing in the construction of a new, F1-compliant circuit on the outskirts of Copenhagen, the city’s authorities are exploring plans for a street course. The primary motivation appears to be cashing in on the popular appeal of local hero Kevin Magnussen. However, a crucial question remains: what happens when the popular Dane eventually retires? The ephemeral nature of such an event means its primary draw disappears, leaving behind no permanent infrastructure or lasting engagement. All gone, with nothing to show for the considerable investment.

Beyond the aforementioned prospects, there has been, and continues to be, extensive discussion about potential street races in Miami, Madrid, Cape Town, Beijing, Seoul, and even on the Chinese island of Hainan. This tally alone represents at least nine prospective urban events. While it’s true that not all of these will materialize – “talk is cheap,” especially in the often speculative world of F1 – let us assume, for argument’s sake, that half of these have a reasonable chance of success, and perhaps a third of the nine eventually make it to the calendar.

Adding just three new street races to the current roster, which already includes Melbourne, Baku, Monaco, Montreal, Singapore, and Sochi (all held on non-permanent or semi-permanent circuits), would bring the total to nine urban events. With the F1 calendar appearing to stabilize at 21-22 races in the foreseeable future, this means over 40 percent of all Grands Prix would be held on street circuits, a significant increase from the historical 28 percent. Twenty years ago, before F1’s commercial rights deal saw sustainability exchanged for a 100-year agreement with Bernie Ecclestone for a mere $300 million, the street race component was just three – Melbourne, Monaco, and Montreal – out of 16 races, representing a modest 18 percent. The trend is clear, and it is extremely disconcerting for the sport’s long-term health and identity.

Debunking the Myths: Four Fallacies of Street Circuit Racing

Fallacy One: Street Circuits Are Cheaper to Promote

Only the truly naive have been led to believe that street circuits are inherently cheaper to promote than Grands Prix on permanent facilities, simply because the tarmac already exists. For irrefutable proof, one need look no further than Baku, as highlighted earlier. For further substantiation, examine the 2017 annual report (PDF link) tabled by the Australian Grand Prix Corporation. This report routinely details annual losses of approximately AU$60 million (£35 million) per event, with a reported total cost of $100 million for the last event, leaving nothing tangible to show for it once the Monday after the race arrives. The immense logistical challenges, infrastructure conversion, and security costs of transforming city streets into race tracks are consistently underestimated or obscured.

By contrast, circuits like Silverstone and Hockenheim, once F1 departs, can swiftly pivot to other activities, often breaking even through immediate track days, club racing, and other profitable events. Staying with Australia for a moment, consider Sydney’s 2000 Olympic Stadium. It is currently undergoing significant upgrades to accommodate both rugby codes and cricket, in addition to its field and track activities, eventually seating 75,000 spectators under a retractable roof. This is a quintessential example of Olympic legacy: a multi-purpose, sustainable investment that serves the community for decades.

Fallacy Two: Street Circuits Offer Better Racing

While Baku has delivered its share of bumper-bashing bonanzas in recent years, its inaugural event was notoriously soporific, matched in the boredom stakes by almost all editions of Valencia’s (thankfully) now-defunct race. This is reminiscent of the kind of uninspiring racing served up by the Caesars Palace (Parking Lot) Grand Prix and, yes, even Monaco on a dry Sunday. The tight, often processional nature of many street circuits, coupled with limited overtaking opportunities, frequently leads to events that fall far short of the thrilling spectacles promised. The constricted layouts often prioritize safety over genuine wheel-to-wheel racing, resulting in a muted on-track product that disappoints hardcore fans.

Fallacy Three: Street Circuits Attract Bigger Crowds and are More Popular

The notion that street circuits automatically draw larger crowds and are universally more popular is another misconception. The last time accurate figures were scrutinized, Monaco struggled to attract 45,000 spectators, despite its legendary allure and status. In stark contrast, Silverstone consistently fills its grandstands to capacity (over 120,000 spectators), despite being situated well over two hours from London (a journey significantly extended by race-day traffic). Baku and Sochi often feature sparse stands, giving the impression of half-empty venues, while in Valencia, it often seemed most fans were personally acquainted with each other due to the small attendance. Singapore, despite its night race glamour, has yet to reliably sell out its event. These examples challenge the idea that urban settings guarantee overwhelming popularity.

Of course, exceptions exist, but the overarching fact remains that street circuits generally accommodate fewer fans due to space constraints, and viewing angles tend to be problematic for spectators. Permanent circuits, on the other hand, often offer wider vistas and purpose-built spectator facilities. Equally important, for city inhabitants who are not ardent F1 fans, street events are an absolute bane. They bring extensive traffic disruptions, force businesses to close or operate at reduced capacity, and often stretch for weeks or even months during the setup and dismantling phases. This significant civic disruption, without a corresponding lasting benefit, certainly constitutes no positive legacy.

Fallacy Four: Street Circuits Are Sustainable

For compelling proof that street circuits often lack long-term sustainability, one need look no further than Formula E. In its inaugural season, the nascent all-electric racing category, which expressly aimed to race in inner cities, listed 10 venues for its 11 races: Beijing, Putra Jaya, Punta del Este, Buenos Aires, Miami, Long Beach, Monaco, Berlin, Moscow, and a double-header in London.

Fast-forward to 2018, and any resemblance between the calendars is purely coincidental. The current list features Hong Kong, Marrakesh, Santiago, Punta del Este, Paris, Rome, Berlin, Zurich, and New York. While Berlin and Punta del Este are common to both lists, the latter served as a last-minute substitute for Sao Paulo, and the former has had a tumultuous on-off-on history. Crucially, the Berlin event is contested on the grounds of the disused Tempelhof airport, meaning it is not, in fact, a traditional street race. This high turnover rate underscores the inherent instability of city-based racing.

Over just four seasons, the series has visited around 15 different circuits in its persistent quest for a stable 10-venue calendar, and it has had unsuccessful dalliances with cities like Montreal, Brussels, and Moscow. The Montreal experience illustrates the risks of street races particularly well: the original contract was approved by then-mayor Denis Coderre, who subsequently failed to secure a second mandate. His successor, Valérie Plante, immediately cancelled the race, citing public funds and disruption as key issues. This swift political change effectively ended the event.

The Montreal Formula E event was widely criticized for its reliance on public funds and its location in downtown Montreal, which necessitated the closure of city streets for a 2.75-kilometer circuit catering to 250 bhp cars. Imagine the far greater disruption, noise, and cost created by the construction of a full-length circuit complying with F1’s vastly more stringent safety standards. Even with its lower impact, Montreal’s Formula E race attracted a mere 45,000 spectators, of which over half were “freebies,” further questioning the economic viability and public support.

FIA President Jean Todt encapsulated the challenge succinctly during a recent media briefing. “We must simply understand how difficult it is to hold a race in a city. At the end of the day, you have potentially a hundred cities that could host, who are willing to host, and then you have to select from 10 to 15. And at the moment we have the best cities hosting a Formula E race,” he stated. “Switzerland did not organize one race since ’55, since the tragic accident at Le Mans. They are so attracted with Formula E that they decided [to promote a race in Zürich]. But saying that, it’s sometimes very much linked to political situations. The mayor is deciding, you will have always the greens who are unhappy. So it makes it difficult.”

If it is inherently “difficult” for Formula E, with its environmentally “green” image, quiet electric cars, NextGen appeal, and single-day event formats, to strike sustainable deals with cities, imagine the exponentially greater challenges facing Formula 1. F1 presents higher speeds, significantly noisier cars, extensive four-day programs, and an “Excess-All-Areas” image that is often at odds with urban living. The political and social hurdles are simply far more formidable.

Political Volatility and Lost Opportunities

While Switzerland did waive its long-standing ban on motor racing for Formula E, a ban in place since the tragic Le Mans accident in 1955, it is highly questionable whether it would have done so for F1, given its vastly higher speeds and noise levels. Indeed, there are already suggestions that Zürich’s city authorities might pull the Formula E race after its inaugural event, highlighting the ongoing political fragility of urban race contracts. Saliently, despite its strong Spanish roots – Formula E CEO Alejandro Agag is a former Spanish MEP – the series has been unsuccessful in wooing a stable Iberian city event, further proof of the difficulty.

However, as outlined previously, the Circuit de Catalunya’s contract is set to expire after next year’s race. Its owners, a consortium that includes the local government administration, and the promoters are currently engaged in intense negotiations to extend the deal. Simultaneously, rumours of an F1 street race in Madrid are gaining significant traction, primarily fueled by the complex Catalan political crisis. Where the region was until recently largely autonomous, its ill-fated declaration of independence has brought it squarely under the direct political aegis of Madrid, creating a strategic window for a rival Spanish Grand Prix location.

So, will F1 eventually decamp to Madrid? It’s a complex political landscape. The mayor of Madrid, a committed socialist, has already unveiled ambitious plans to ban cars from the city’s iconic Gran Via – and diesel vehicles from the entire city center. Such a stance makes it highly unlikely she would enthusiastically embrace the noise, disruption, and environmental concerns associated with hosting F1. Furthermore, her political platform was largely built on the eradication of corruption, a dark cloud under which F1 still labors in political circles following recent high-profile scandals, making a partnership even more challenging.

That said, let us play Devil’s Advocate: imagine Liberty Media successfully agrees terms with Madrid for a street race. The mayor, against all odds, becomes convinced and secures council approval for a five-year deal. The consequent lack of a Grand Prix at Circuit de Catalunya sees the permanent circuit fall into a state of disrepair. It might lose its crucial F1 testing license, though it could continue to host MotoGP profitably due to lower fees and consistently larger crowds. After five years, however, Madrid experiences a change in mayoral administration; the incoming leadership is vehemently opposed to motorsport and swiftly cancels the race. The result: no Madrid round, despite prior investments running to tens of millions of euros to host the event – money that could have been far better spent on upgrading and securing the future of Catalunya.

For numerous precedents illustrating this exact scenario, look no further than Valencia, which squandered tens of millions on its street race despite having an F1-compliant circuit within its regional borders. Consider the ill-fated Mokpo (semi) street circuit in Korea, or the aforementioned Montreal Formula E event. Indeed, recall the proposed New Jersey Grand Prix, which thudded to a sudden halt despite having a secured calendar slot. These examples paint a consistent picture of instability, financial risk, and unfulfilled promises when it comes to urban racing projects.

The Miami Paradox: A Risky Precedent

Now, F1 is actively punting Miami as its next major street race destination. Let us assume the city council grants approval for the event, which is by no means a foregone conclusion given the significant antipathy from resident groups in the very areas through which the proposed layout threads. At this stage, permission to merely negotiate with F1 has been granted to the city executive, nothing more. Yet, already changes have been forcibly imposed upon the promoters’ planned track due to intense local political pressures and community opposition.

The proposed financial model for Miami—a risk-sharing deal between Formula One Management, the promoter, and the city council—sets a precedent that other aspiring promoters would undoubtedly covet. But is such a complex, shared-risk arrangement truly sustainable in the long term? Above all, what tangible or intangible legacy will this race leave, whether after one year, five years, or ten? The USA already boasts numerous high-quality permanent circuits that could readily host a Grand Prix with few, if any, upgrades. This begs the fundamental question: why F1’s almost inexplicable fetish with street races, especially when more established and sustainable options exist?

Conclusion: Charting a Sustainable Course for Formula 1

Surely, Formula 1 would be better served by its commercial rights holder if Liberty Media concentrated its strategic efforts on ensuring the sustainability and strengthening of its existing circuit base, rather than blindly following Formula E’s often rocky path with urban races. The inherent value of permanent circuits – their ability to foster local motorsport, host diverse events, and provide tangible, lasting infrastructure – is unparalleled. Does Liberty Media truly wish to be remembered as the company that simply took F1’s money and ran, chasing short-term gains at the expense of long-term stability? Or does it aspire to be an ethical organization that thoughtfully created a resilient and lasting legacy for the sport, ensuring its health and appeal for generations to come?

RacingLines

For more insightful analysis and commentary:

• The year of sprints, ‘the show’ – and rising stock: A political review of the 2021 F1 season
• The problems of perception the FIA must address after the Abu Dhabi row
• Why the budget cap could be F1’s next battleground between Mercedes and Red Bull
• Todt defied expectations as president – now he plans to “disappear” from FIA
• Sir Frank Williams: A personal appreciation of a true racer

Browse all RacingLines columns
Go ad-free for just £1 per month>> Find out more and sign up