英语论文网

cted upon the Dutch landscape, while offering a more optimistic view with the Manhattan density. There are no romanticized images of these future visions, like those of Pampus City or even for that matter, negatives ones. It shows what it needs to show without really conveying an opinion, an experiment without a conclusion. It is up to the viewer to decide.

Counteractive Process

There are some errors with some of the labelling of diagrams and mixing up of some of the typologies. This is probably due to time constraints and has negligible affect on the main aims of the project. But there are some bigger problems with a design process that relies so much on abstract representation and the way the viewer interprets this information. The main negative point with Point/South City is ironically the over reliance on the image and the power of it.

In reference to OMA's work in general, Leach states: “What is at risk in this process of aestheticization is that political and social content may be subsumed, absorbed and denied. The seduction of the image works against any underlying sense of social commitment”[32] This theory can be applied to Point/South City. Reality has become so abstracted, and the statistics so specifically selected and manipulated, that it has become an escapist version of the Netherlands that has been tuned to convey only the aspects OMA want to show. The diagrams are at such a large scale and high level of abstraction that problematic realities may lie dormant. On the other hand, these simplifications although hiding some of the fundamental issues at stake, offer a form of connectivity that allow people to relate to their environment.

If the images are taken at a more literal level as a real solution to the problems in the Netherlands, it could be argued that OMA's seductive images detract from what they are actually showing. Viewers could be deceived by the images and not by what they entail. This raises the question of why has the project never been elaborated upon in later works. Is it reasonable to present these images without taking them further? Has it not been taken further because there is a weakness in the idea? 

What are the technicalities? Why haven't the conditions that were redistributed at the start, such as agriculture and infrastructure not been reintroduced? This would diminish the clarity of the work. But it could have been shown in a study at the end. OMA are articulating that they do not think the current situation is right, but are not providing a clearer solution. They have gained our attention but not taken it any further and are too optimistic in their view that people would accept a density like that of Manhattan. What about all the negative impact that this would have? The viewer is persuaded and intrigued by the statistics, but what is the reality of this being adopted in the Netherlands? The people at OMA may think that this metropolitan ideal is the way to live, but many would disagree.

Although it was earlier argued that some of the questions that Koolhaas has previously raised, like those brought up in his discussion of the Generic City, a critique of the placelessness of the contemporary cityscape, where each city i本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。