[Reading Response: Carl Abbott]

Abbott imagines different styles of futuristic cities. I feel impressive about the imaginative future London, where the skyscrapers are 2000 feet tall while surrounded by urban factories. This kind of city is “vertical other than horizontal”, and I think it represents the social hierarchy itself. The most wealthy and powerful people are locating at the peak of the towers, having harbour-view offices and seaside apartments, while the workers are working at the very bottom. The current metropolises are very similar to this style, such as Central which happens to have the tallest skyline in HK and works as the daily spaces for the wealthiest. The future architectures should also be realistic, even though there could be some concepts like “moving cities”. The traditional aesthetics which applies to architecture construction might not change much, but currently there are more “weird futuristic buildings” globally, for example the “Guangzhou Yuan Tower”, which breaks the simplicity and elegance of the old-town Guangzhou.

—-Shuntian Tan 3035777585

1 thought on “[Reading Response: Carl Abbott]

  1. Jen Lam says:

    Your reflection is critical. I enjoy how you compare the current situation to the sci-fi cities (Central as the vertical city). This offers us another pair of lenses to analyze the space through the narrative. It is interesting how architectures are physical and obvious yet it needs to borrow the voices of sci-fi cities to be truly seen and understood. Why is being realistic important for futuristic architectural designs? What is the issue of unrealistic futuristic designs?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.