Ackbar’s work draws upon Peter Hall and Rem Koolhaas’ work refer to the fact that many examples of “generic cities” tend to actually be Asian. A notable example of this is Asian city’s tendency to build “memorable landmarks” that end up becoming lost and invisible due to oversaturation. However, I disagree with this Eurocentric sentiment which imposes their own views towards what makes a city generic or not through their own lenses. Their stance emphasizes the importance of a city’s culture and history (perhaps due to Europe’s extensive preservation efforts) but this fails to consider the Asian perspective. Landmarks that they may invisible and redundant to them are instead proud indicators of Asia’s rapid development in recent times, landmarks that set Asian cities apart from each other (see Taipei 101 v.s Marina Bay Sands v.s Tokyo Tower). Thus whilst I understand to an extent where Ackbar and his contemporaries come from to an extent I believe that his inherently “non-local” views are unfairly imposed upon the readers due to a mismatch in cultural expectations.
Yi Ko (Danny) Wo – 3035709253
I can understand the sentiment you are posing. However, I would like to also invite you to first dissect what did they even mean by “generic city”? Is it even always a product of globalisation? What has it represented? I liked your comparison of several landmarks in Asian cities. They are definitely not generic, aren’t they? But, despite their representation of economic advancement, could what Abbas/Koolhaas meant by generic was the fact that all cities have been celebrating their growth too similarly? Those kinds of buildings are often referred to as siteless buildings, which can be situated in any site in the world without much dependency on their context. Would you think there be any possibilities of creating a landmark that is both representing economic and cultural superiority?