Table Discussions with Loureed#2; "The Generic City" is largely Asian?

[LouReed]

"Take, for instance, Ren Koolhaas's attempt to think about the future of cities in terms of the Generic City. Koolhaas likens the Generic City to contemporary airports and argues against those who continue to think about cities aand architecture solely in terms of local idenity and traditional community.

The Generic City is the result when identity is stripped away, Koolhaas says. In his discussion, "idenitity" is something assoicated with history that is deposited in architecture, and Koolhaas argues that "identity conceived as this form of sharing the past is a losing proposition." By implication, the Generic City that Koolhaas promotes as a winning propostion is said to be "largely Asian."

If Koolhaas's text is meant to get under Asian skins, he is certainly successful. Writing in the Taiwanese architectural journal Dialogue, Weijen Wang observed that the Generic City was inspired by "the East in the eyes of the West" and steeped in a kind of neo-orientalism."





What is this??? First you people think we all look the same and now you are saying our cities look the same???? :uhh: Well Koolhaas, the people in Harvard think you're a total hack!

[fflint]

"You people"? Who are you attacking here?

[arbeiter]

no, we all think you are a dork!

[miketoronto]

He means white people think all Asians are the same.

[arbeiter]

O Rly?

[Steely Dan]

He means white people think all Asians are the same.
i love irony.

[LouReed]

calm down people. i'm kidding.


now what about the generic city??

[holladay]

koolhaas has a point, you know.
in the 21st century the west is basically done. even with the construction going on in many cities in america their is virtually no comparison with what's happening in asia. in the next few decades we'll see the sudden birth of many new mega cities in all parts of asia. the same thing will also occur in africa. but koolhaas focuses his attention on the asian cities because they are new centers of wealth, and what he is forecasting is already happening.

you can already look at cities in china, malaysia, the uae, and many other places and see that mega developments are rapidly destroying what's old and replacing the existing city with a new, artificial landscape of huge towers, malls, hotels, and empty public spaces. this model is largely western but it has been adopted and reworked and unleashed on previously unheard of scales. all over the place you see the same type of development occurring. every city wants a 1000 footer, or a 1200 footer or a huge mall and 10 million square feet of new office space.

koolhaas is arguing that as this ubiquitous large-scale development occurs worldwide, all cultural differences become eradicated. the world becomes one continuous network of business transactions and communication exchange. he makes the analogy to airports because cities are functioning more and more like transient connections than culturally specific places.

and btw, no the folks at harvard dont think he's crazy. in the past 10 years they've funded his urban research and published tons of his books! any other architecture school would snap him up in a second if they had the chance!

[LouReed]

koolhaas is arguing that as this ubiquitous large-scale development occurs worldwide, all cultural differences become eradicated. the world becomes one continuous network of business transactions and communication exchange. he makes the analogy to airports because cities are functioning more and more like transient connections than culturally specific places.

and btw, no the folks at harvard dont think he's crazy. in the past 10 years they've funded his urban research and published tons of his books! any other architecture school would snap him up in a second if they had the chance!


I somewhat agree with what you said, except he believes this problem is "largely Asian" or specifically Asian. I'm not so sure he means what you wrote, but I've only read excerpts from his "generic city."

The writer that quoted him, Stanilus Fung, believes he is attacking Asian cities and looking from a Western biased point of view. It's the "neo-orientalism" he is talking about. The reason why many Asian and Chinese cities destroy their historical architecture in such a cavalier manner is because East Asians do not view their architecture as the everlasting monuments that Europeans/Westerners do with their buildings.

East Asians do not invest so much of their cultural worth into buildings, but instead let other vehicles such as calligraphy, cuisine, social customs, do the talking. Buildings were only meant to be transitory structures where the real culture is occuring inside these buildings.

The Chinese would readily give up their wooden structures for the more efficient and comfortable Western buildings, but they would never give up their Chinese characters no matter how efficient and practical the Western alphabet is. The total destruction of one period's buildings and replacing it with the next is actually is very well established tradition in Chinese cities. Each dynasty erases evidence of the last, and makes their mark.


This is what I mean when Koolhas expects China to mirror Europe and have layers of historical architecture in each city.


I know Harvard loves Koolhas. He is a faculty member I believe, but when I spoke to students and other faculty there, they couldn't help rolling their eyes at his 'tude and snobbery. ;)

[holladay]

Koolhaas is one of the architects who places the least value on the longevity of buildings. Most of his own projects - especially those built prior to 5 or 6 years ago were constructed very cheaply and incorporated lots of materials other architects consider junk. The Kunsthalle in Rotterdam or the Educatorium in Utrecht, for example, make use of such things as chain link fencing, industrial screens, corrugated greenhouse siding, and unfinished plywood. In fact, Koolhaas is quite clever and inventive when he uses such "mundane" modern materials.

I don't think Koolhaas is exactly critical of the "generic city.' I think he understands its inevitability. Why should we continue to care about making things last when everything is changing so fast? I'd say he is a major proponent of the eradication of tradition. He has written that airports are his favorite places because of their completely generic nature and anonymity. To believe that he is making a negative comment towards Asia is wrong. On the contrary, Koolhaas is much more interested and intrigued by what is happening in Asia than he is with European and American urbanism. For years he has been saying, "Go EAST" - long before any other architects realized that Asia is where all the action is. His research, entitled "Project on the City" has focused for years on global urbanism. His first research was on the Pearl River Delta in China, then he moved on to Lagos, and I believe he has also studied in other countries. If you are interested in the future directions of world urbanism then Koolhaas offers a very fresh perspective.

[LouReed]

very interesting. you clearly know more than i do regarding Koolhas. i see your point.

i suppose the article i read by Stanilus Fung had an aggressive and defensive reaction to what Koolhas said about the "generic city." perhaps Fung missed Koolhas' point entirely. :yes:

[Rail Claimore]

The reason why many Asian and Chinese cities destroy their historical architecture in such a cavalier manner is because East Asians do not view their architecture as the everlasting monuments that Europeans/Westerners do with their buildings.

East Asians do not invest so much of their cultural worth into buildings, but instead let other vehicles such as calligraphy, cuisine, social customs, do the talking.

Well, at least someone gets it.