After reading the excerpt, I realize that the consequence of a city being generic is serious. A generic city is a city without identity and culture because different kinds of identity mix there. For example, we see Hong Kong as our home because of the sense of belonging and our identity of being Hongkonger. The city expands rapidly without proper city planning. Abbas mentioned that a large part of urban life is moved to cyberspace. With the advancement in technology, people can chat and have entertainment online. The bonding between people is weakened and the distances between people are lengthened. There is no unity in the city and the individuals live in their worlds. I think this is what happening in some metropolises. As there are more working opportunities in the large cities, people from different cultural backgrounds migrate to there. Due to the increase in population, the city has to grow in size within a short period. When the city becomes generic, many social problems emerge, such as people do not have a sense of belongings and will not lend a hand to the city. In my opinion, it is inevitable that the city becomes generic if it has diversified culture. As long as the government has proper city planning and the citizens are willing to accept each other, a new culture can be established in the diversified city. If there is a mainstream culture, which is recognized by the majority, then the city will become cohesive again.
Notes
Abbas, M. A. (2003). Cinema, Cities and the Cinematic. In Global cities: Cinema, architecture, and urbanism in a digital age (pp. 142-156), edited by Krause, L., and Petro, P. New Brunswick, NJ; London: Rutgers University Press.
Poon Ho Ting, 3035800904
Good attempt in extending the ideas of generic city through your response. It would greatly benefit if you have closer reference to the text so that it will be easier to understand which of Abbas’ arguments you’re referring to. The discussion on how cyber space weakens people’s relationship is particularly timely, the most prominent example is the mobile revolution in China where people’s identity is bounded by their phones. As a result, it doesn’t allow people to build relationships on their own and instant appraisal of everything is reduced to ratings. Since you have also mentioned that city planning is also affected in this process, do you think there is a way to combat the over influence of technology? It would be great if you can elaborate a bit more.