Generic Island (2048 : A City Odyssey
2015
The Generic City breaks with this destructive cycle of dependency: it is nothing but a reflection of present need and present ability. It is the city without history. It is big enough for everybody. It is easy. It does not need maintenance. If it gets too small, it just expands. If it gets old, it just self-destructs and renews itself. It is equally exciting — or unexciting — everywhere. It is ‘superficial’ — like a Hollywood studio lot, it can produce a new identity every Monday morning.
(Koolhaas, 1995)
(Koolhaas, 1995)
Generic Island is situated next to Istanbul’s Third Airport, which was still under construction at the time of the project. With a 500 m x 500 m plan, it is conceived as a public theme island, primarily targeting tourists arriving at the airport. The island defines its name and conceptual framework through Rem Koolhaas’s 1995 essay Generic City. It contains within itself all the imagery demanded by mass tourism.
On the island, it is possible to find the relatively iconic buildings and more from the destinations included in tour routes planned by tourism companies for group travel; historical structures transformed into entertainment, cultural, dining, and shopping centres; and hotels for those who wish not only to visit but also to stay. All the buildings on the island are full-scale replicas of their originals. These reproductions differ from the originals in terms of material and function. All structures on the island are produced from the same material. In some places, they serve as primary structural elements, while in others, they are positioned on the island as spaces of circulation.
The fundamental issue problematised by the project is the concept of “place.” What would happen if architecture became placeless? The “place that is not a place” designed through Generic Island argues against all these definitions of place and instead transforms into a placeless object that does not belong to its site. Together with itself, it detaches, abstracts, and renders anonymous all the elements it contains, and consequently all its visitors, from their existence. In terms of its mode of existence, it becomes a superficial theme. It can neither accumulate memory nor contain historicity. While it is capable of responding to all the demands of mass tourism, it entirely disregards and devalues urban identity and urban life.
University Bilgi University Istanbul
Course Master Design Studio
Professors Sinan Logie, Augustin Reynaud
Dates 2015