As far as I am concerned, the concept of exorbitant city focuses on the historical aspect while the concept of generic city is usually based on a city’s appearance or its exterior features, often neglecting its inconspicuous social issues. Generic cities demonstrate similarities in city planning especially in terms of constructing landmarks and unique architecture, development status, as well as patterns of density, which is associated with impacts of globalization. To a certain extent, globalization promotes homogeneity as interaction and integration around the globe somehow allow people to reach consensus and share common values. As a result, rise of generic cities becomes a prevalence. However, I do believe that exorbitant city and generic city can coexist as long as it possesses exorbitant and complex historical and cultural movement. Similar to what is mentioned in the article “It is invisible because it is exorbitant”, a city can be invisible when images of the city reflect little about its complexity. Simultaneously, it is generic when you look at the familiar landmarks.
Yuqi Mi
3035695713
Appreciate this thoughtful reflection on Abbas’ theory on the “exorbitant” and “generic” city. It is extremely well articulated especially with regards to relating globalisation to the “generic city,” and draw out concerns with the idea of representation and of image/identity construction. Globalisation is an instigator of cross-fertilization to take place and homogeneity is a result of this process. Lastly, an excellent conclusion to summarise how both exorbitant and generic city can coexist.