“Disappointment is the realisation that every desire that we want to believe is unique and original is already a repetition”
We strive to search for our own identity as a person, as a student, as a city. We tried to be unique, like in architecture studio sessions, we tried to design something unique. Originality as an aim is a repetition but the outcome is not repeated. Generic cities are cities that create their own identity without their history. They wanted to be unique. Cities made iconic landmarks to define their city, for example, the CCTV building in Beijing has an eye-catching design, but the construction is too complicated that a lot of the spaces within the building are left unused. The building was purely for the icon, instead of using it to the fullest. What truly defines a city is its cultural identity. There are other qualities that could be more emphasised on, like building for the social, not just the landmark. Modern landmarks of fancy design in the cities only are the fancy buildings for chain shops: even in a different building, the shop essentially is the same. Instead of trying to be unique, what’s more important would probably be to create a city for its own people, rather than the reputation globally.
By Hui Yui Gi Catherine
3035698014
This is a good attempt at breaking down the characteristics that define what Abbas terms a “generic city,” particularly in bringing in ideas of “iconicity” or what it means for a city to have building landmarks that make it iconic. Consider this, why do so many major cities plan to have startchitects contribute to their urban development? What significance and global impact does this have on a city’s “iconic image” if it does at all? Lastly, what is your take on the “exorbitant city”?