He Yifu
Abbas argues that “the generic city” is ‘superficial’, lack of history and can produce a new identity every Monday morning. From my point of view, his argument is indeed inspiring, yet illogical in some sense.
Every city has its own history, it could be a long one, like Beijing or Xi’an, or it could be a short one, like Shanghai or Shenzhen. Despite the length, the history behind every city is real and meaningful. In Abbas’s argument, cities like Shanghai or Shenzhen could be categorized as generic, because it seems that both cities are, what he calls, superficial.
However, one must be superficial to make cities superficial. As I mentioned before, despite the length, every city has its very own history. People find a city full of modernized buildings then call it superficial is superficial people, as they fail to see the stories, the histories behind the buildings.
To conclude, I believe the city being generic is a subjective idea. It is people being superficial, then calling the city generic rather than the city itself being superficial.
He Yifu
3035533836
You pose a very strong point against Abbas’ argument on the superficiality of the ‘generic city,’ which he asserts derives from the history of a place (or lack-thereof). Surely one can also argue that history is everyday in the making. In this case, what do you think makes a ‘generic city’? What are the elements that contribute to a city being homogeneous?