“The Real Modernity that Is Here”: Understanding the Role of Digital Visualisations in the Production of a New Urban Imaginary at Msheireb Downtown, Doha

Abstract

This paper explores how Computer Generated Images have enabled the visualisation and negotiation of a new urban imaginary, in the production of a large-scale urban development project in Doha, Qatar. CGIs were central not only to the marketing but also the design of Msheireb Downtown. Our study of their production and circulation across a transnational architectural and construction team reveals how their digital characteristics allowed for the development of a negotiated, hybrid urban imaginary, within the context of a re-imaging and re-positioning of cities in a shifting global order. We suggest that CGIs enabled the coproduction of a postcolonial urban aesthetic, disrupting the historical orientalist gaze on the Gulf region, in three ways. Firstly, they circulate through a global network of actors negotiating diverse forms of knowledge from different contexts; secondly, they are composed from a mix of inter-referenced cultural sources and indicators visualising hybrid identities; and thirdly, they evoke a particular urban atmosphere which is both place-and culture-specific, and cosmopolitan. The study emphasises the importance of research into the technical and 2 aesthetic production processes which generate new urban spaces in the context of global market-led growth; and, by considering the circulation of CGIs between sites, contributes to the development of 'a more properly postcolonial studies' (Robinson 2011: 17).

Nation Branding for China: Global Brokers in International Real Estate in China

“…This involves urban developments and branding narratives based on the “inter‐referencing” (Roy & Ong 2011) amongst cities around the world. The emulation of practices, policies, and urban models of cities considered symbols of global modernity can lead, for instance, to the creation of a “Chinatown” in Puerto Rico (Dehart 2015), the construction of metro lines in Delhi (Sadana 2018), or the hiring of foreign experts for the digital planning of a district in Doha (Melhuish, Degen & Rose 2016).…”

Posthuman Agency in the Digitally Mediated City: Exteriorization, Individuation, Reinvention

“…A posthuman, 20 remember, is greedy for those external signs without which they cannot exist, and cities are sites in which those signs are produced, circulated and encountered most intensively. Posthumans in cities are sociotechnically co-produced digitally with many different digital devices while doing many different things -communicating via Snapchat; travelling with Uber, Google Earth and Google Maps (Graham, Zook, and Boulton 2013;Laforest 2016); being recorded by surveillance cameras and body heat sensors; playing PokemonGo; glancing at algorithm-generated advertisements on smartphone email apps; writing #blacklivesmatter in tweetts; tagging and posting photos on Instagram; liking on FourSquare or Facebook; working on a computer generated image of an urban redevelopment project (Melhuish, Degen, and Rose 2016); viewing crowd-sourced i-documentaries, maps, witnessing plaforms and GIScience efforts to map marginalised urban lives (Elwood and Leszczynski 2013;Favero 2013;Graham, Zook, and Boulton 2013;Bagheri 2014;Quiquivix 2014;Ferreira andSalvador 2015, 2015); as well as the many things done with the platforms and databases that now insist that they are 'the social' (Couldry and Dijck 2015) -to name just a few, all of which generate data which is processed to generate innumerable tertiary retentions of many kinds, numeric, textual and visual. 7…”

‘A place for the unexpected, integrated into the city structure’: universities as agents of cosmopolitan urbanism

“…Access to a broad range of funding sources and strong credit profiles further empower universities to promote such agendas, and to model alternative ideas about a more progressive and responsive urbanism and architectural practice in the postcolonial, cosmopolitan context. A significant number of institutions internationally are critically re-evaluating their relationship with the cities and neighbourhoods in which they are located, drawing on a development rhetoric of permeability, inclusivity, and opportunity, which acknowledges conditions of heightened mobility and intercultural contact, but also rising levels of inequality, in contemporary urban life, and the need for universities to address these problems (Melhuish 2015, Choueri and Myntti 2012, Rodin 2007, Maurasse 2001). The next section will examine the notion of universities as agents of a cosmopolitan urbanism that engages with these issues, transcending national boundaries, and interreferencing a global network of cities.…”

“…Universities are entrenched in this game of commercial comparison and evaluation more than ever before -both institutional and spatial. But many are also recognizing the necessity of representing and building distinctive, grounded visions of themselves in relation to their urban neighbours, embedded in local situations, embodied in spatial development,and mediated by architects and communities (Melhuish 2015).…”

“…Alternative typologies are being evoked to describe a concept of embedded identity in the urban context which depends on building relationships among different communities, and blurs the boundaries between formal and informal development. In the UK, for example, the terms 'non-campus campus' (Durham Queen's Campus), 'living laboratory' (Newcastle University at Science Central), 'urban extension' (Cambridge University), 'communiversity' (Sheffield University), and 'collaboratory' (Bristol University) have entered circulation via university vision statements, development plans, and outreach initiatives, to indicate an evolution of institutional identity and modus operandi away from the so-called 'ivory tower' model of the past (Melhuish 2015).…”