Note: this is a follow-up on this comment
Some of the G20 conferences incur high costs, both financially (up to hundreds of millions of dollars spent for organizing it + damages done by protests) and non-financially (e.g. significant disruption due to fences and other traffic limitations)
This article mentions that about 20K visited Argentina for the summit and such a large number clearly incurs a rather high cost.
While I understand that such summits are necessary, I do not understand why make such a fuss about it. Why not make it smaller (fewer people, relatively easy to accommodate in a smaller town/city that's easier to secure and possibly with less disruption for the local population)?
This answer explains why summits such as G20 are held in big cities and it boils down to big/important summits requiring appropriate infrastructure that can be offered only by the big cities. So, my question is why G20 need to be so big, especially since it proved to be a particular target for large protests?