In the tutorial, the term “generic city” was discussed. The definition is “a city which gives a new identity to themselves by escaping from their past histories”. We also discussed Hong Kong as a generic city, where it tries to detach from colonialism by reinventing an individual urban image of itself, building a lot of skyscrapers by starchitects. However, some mentioned while every city is trying to be unique, the actuality is that they are doing the same imitation of the urban image of each other. Therefore, I would call these cities “globalized generic cities”. The exorbitant city is a city bigger than they imagine. It is shown in cinematic scenes to elevate and show the complexity of these cities, just for the audience to be attracted to these settings. Overall, exorbitant cities are more “photogenic” and “advertising”, and generic cities are more on reality and based on economic systems.
It is interesting that you bring up the issue of “image” of the city. By extension, this refers to also the “representation of the self” – in this case, self refers to the city as a protagonist – and begs us to wonder what impact these representations/presentations/idealisations of the self have in the global economy? 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?
Furthermore, from your understanding of the “exorbitant city” and “generic city,” do the two share similar characteristics? Can they both coexist? To what extent do you see this as exemplified in Hong Kong or another city that you are familiar with?