Osaka–Kansai Expo’s V-Shaped Comeback

The original theme was “The Challenge of Human Health and Longevity”

The Osaka-Kansai Expo has come to a close. Up until right before its opening, public opinion was largely negative, but by the end, most of the news surrounding it was positive. Expo merchandise continues to sell, events remain popular, and many people are now experiencing what they call “Expo loss.”

It was truly a major event. The original theme was “A Challenge for Humanity’s Health and Longevity,” which later changed to “Designing Future Society for Our Lives.” The Expo was originally meant to be a place where visitors could experience the meaning of such a theme through pavilions and events, and then connect that experience to discussions on how to realize it in the next stage of society.

However, rather than focusing on that original purpose, the media often reported on pre-opening troubles, operational shortcomings, and the ticketing frenzy that intensified toward the end. It was also frequently compared to nearby theme parks, though the Expo is fundamentally different from those. As someone born and raised in Osaka and still living there, the author looks back on the Expo, which they visited a total of 26 times.

Before and after the opening

Before the opening of the Expo, the media and social networking sites were overwhelmingly against the Expo.

In addition to such concerns as construction costs are too high, delays in pavilion construction, and methane gas explosions in the venue, some countries, including Mexico and South Africa, withdrew from the Expo midway through the event, leading to the widespread belief that the Expo was a negative event for Japanese people.

It was even considered strange to say, “I am going to go to the Expo,” or “I bought a season pass. A number of schools in Osaka Prefecture did not participate in the free invitations to elementary and junior high school students to the Expo, citing “many parents’ objections” and other reasons.

In addition, every store selling Expo merchandise in Osaka City was deserted. Even when the mascot character “Myakmyak” appeared at events, it was not surrounded by as many people as it is now, and was not popular enough to be called creepy when it was unveiled.’ In March 2012, the statue of Myakmyak installed in front of Osaka City Hall was scratched, and in May of the same year, it was graffitied.

Even after the opening of the exhibition, the more negative topics such as blur in the pavilion, outbreak of chironomid, cancellation of the water show due to detection of legionella bacteria, and nonpayment of construction costs were widely covered. However, as the event progressed, the criticism of the Expo was gradually drowned out by a surge of positive messages on social networking services, such as “I went to the Expo and found it interesting.”

The Japan Pavilion was unremarkable but there was a big difference between the pavilions

The pavilions, the true highlight of any Expo, numbered over 180 in total, with 84 major ones. At the most popular pavilions, long lines formed for entry.

The contents of these pavilions varied tremendously. For example, the Italy Pavilion, one of the most popular, displayed ancient Roman sculptures and works by Leonardo da Vinci, attracting huge crowds every day. The Saudi Arabia Pavilion, representing the host country of the next Expo in Riyadh in 2030, featured a building designed like a souk (market), making an overwhelming visual impression. The Turkmenistan Pavilion, which opened with propaganda videos befitting an authoritarian state, also left a strong impression with its imposing exterior.

On the other hand, there were quite a few pavilions that simply showed videos inside their buildings, giving off the impression that neither much money nor time was invested. Even when they presented their countries’ initiatives in line with the Expo’s theme, “Designing Future Society for Our Lives,” it was hard to feel engaged if visitors had never been to or weren’t familiar with those countries, leaving some with a sense of underwhelm.

The Japan Pavilion, hosted by the home country, featured exhibits such as biogas power generation using food waste from the Expo site and demonstrations of how microorganisms transform garbage into water and energy—a textbook-perfect embodiment of the theme. While certainly not wrong, it lacked a sense of distinct Japanese identity and came across as plain and subdued.

Among them, the Osaka Healthcare Pavilion stood out for its “Reborn Experience.” Using seven health data points—such as muscle, skeletal, and skin condition—it generated an avatar showing yourself 25 years in the future, allowing visitors to experience future urban life alongside it. It successfully embodied the Expo’s theme while helping visitors envision their own futures, making for an engaging and easy-to-understand exhibit.

Despite the digital thrust, there were a number of flaws, some of which were analog

All payments inside the Expo venue were completely cashless—cash was not accepted anywhere. Admission tickets were also primarily sold online.

To purchase tickets, visitors first had to register for a “Expo ID” and then reserve an entry date and gate. Concerns that personal information might leak spread online, affecting early ticket sales. Complaints also arose that the ticket purchasing process was too complicated, prompting Osaka Prefecture and Osaka City to set up in-person support desks at public and commercial facilities. However, many people at the time viewed these efforts skeptically, saying things like, “They’re using taxpayers’ money again.”

The inconveniences of digital systems became apparent right from opening day. Due to crowd congestion at the gates, many visitors were unable to display their QR code e-tickets on their smartphones because of network disruptions.

Moreover, to access the ticket site, visitors had to go through two-factor authentication and were often placed in an online waiting room due to heavy traffic—ironically making the supposedly digital-first system feel quite inconvenient. Constant smartphone use also led to rapid battery drain, yet there were almost no charging stations, making portable chargers an essential item.

Meanwhile, re-entry required a simple re-entry stamp on the back of the hand, which was checked under a light at the re-entry gate. For “VIP tickets” issued to pavilion guests and others, the rules required recipients to print out the PDF ticket sent by email and hand it in at a special gate. Despite its emphasis on digital innovation, the Expo still displayed plenty of old-fashioned, bureaucratic analog touches.

The older age of visitors is also a factor

In Osaka, news about the Expo filled the air every day, and many people around were visiting repeatedly. However, whenever the author traveled to Tokyo or elsewhere, people would often say, “Oh right, the Expo is going on,” and it was rarely seen on national TV.

According to data released by the Expo Association, visitors by region were: Kinki (67.1%), Kanto (16.4%), and Chubu (8.7%), among others. Back in Osaka, it was also noticeable how many people were wearing Myaku-Myaku merchandise.

When the author took the JR Yumesaki Line toward the West Gate of the Expo, most passengers got off at Universal City Station, and the average age of those remaining on the train suddenly rose. By age group, visitors were distributed as follows: under 19 — 17.0%, 20s — 11.7%, 30s — 13.9%, 40s — 17.5%, 50s — 21.3%, 60s — 13.7%, 70s — 4.4%, and 80s — 0.6%. The largest group was those in their 50s, with people aged 50 and above making up 40% of the total.

The author noticed that the crowd at the Expo skewed older and that there were relatively few young visitors. When the author asked family members in their 20s about it, they bluntly replied, “I’m not interested,” having visited the venue only once for work. This Expo, held again in Osaka like the one in 1970, seemed to have been driven by the generation that experienced the fun back then or heard about it from their parents, leaving questions about whether that enthusiasm could truly be carried forward into the future.

In the end, it became a no-line Expo — a legacy kept alive by Osaka Metro

After the Expo opened, public sentiment turned positive, and media coverage and social media posts became overwhelmingly upbeat. However, poor management continued to be criticized until the very end. The biggest example was the Expo’s ticketing website. Heavy traffic caused users to be stuck in waiting rooms, often ending with error screens. Despite multiple redesigns, the problems were never fully resolved, and many unofficial tools appeared to check pavilion wait times and make same-day reservations.

The much-touted no-line Expo never really materialized. Visitors ended up queuing everywhere — at the gates, pavilions, restaurants, souvenir shops, water stations, and even restrooms. By the final days, it became what some called a can’t-line-up Expo, where lines could no longer even form properly. As the closing drew near, more people began arriving on the first trains of the day or even staying overnight to secure same-day reservations.

Meanwhile, the unsung hero of the Expo was likely Osaka Metro. It was the only railway line directly connected to the venue, and the nearest station, Yumeshima, was packed morning and night, with especially heavy congestion after 9 p.m., even on weekdays. Although visitors had to take a long detour route after exiting the East Gate, crowds still jammed the stairways leading down to the platforms.

Even so, Osaka Metro’s transport capacity — with trains arriving one after another — and the precise guidance from staff and security personnel appeared flawless. Just as during the 1970 Osaka Expo, when visitors crowded the grounds late into the night without major incidents, one could imagine that the legacy of that successful transportation operation lived on this time as well.

In less than seven years since its creation, there have been eight different ministers — prompting the question, “Who exactly is the Expo Minister?”

Have you ever heard of the position “Minister for the Expo” (officially, Minister in charge of the World Expo)? Many people probably couldn’t match the name to the face, or even recall who currently holds the role.

The position was established on December 21, 2018, following the decision to host the Expo. From the first minister, Hiroshige Seko, to the current one, Yoshitaka Ito, there have been eight ministers in total. Initially, their duties included preparing legislation and attracting participating countries and regions. Now, the focus has shifted to leveraging the Expo for regional revitalization and connecting it to Japan’s long-term national development. For that reason, the minister also serves concurrently as the Minister of State for Regional Revitalization.

Nevertheless, many question what the ministers have actually accomplished. In particular, the issue of unpaid construction fees for pavilions involves international matters that should fall under the minister’s jurisdiction rather than that of local governments. Without resolving such problems, is it really appropriate to move forward with talk of the Expo’s “legacy”?

Why Expo 1970 is actually about what happens after the event closes

What is the true purpose of holding a World Expo? It all began with the first London Expo in 1851, which was organized to showcase Britain’s industrial strength following the Industrial Revolution. Today, Expos primarily focus on international exchange, economic development, addressing global challenges, and creating a better future society. The same applied to this Expo.

The 1970 Osaka Expo had the theme “Progress and Harmony for Mankind.” Japan at the time was in the midst of rapid economic growth, and the Expo served as a platform to present visions of the future, showcasing emerging technologies such as mobile phones and electric vehicles. The legacy of that Expo has endured, forming part of the reason Osaka was chosen once again to host the event.

An Expo does not truly end when it closes. What matters is how the visions of future societies presented by various countries’ pavilions are developed and realized afterward. The question remains: were the Expo’s purpose and legacy clearly conveyed to the roughly 25 million visitors who attended?