Commodifying the City: Architectural City Branding of Abu Dhabi

Commodifying the City: Architectural City Branding of Abu Dhabi

In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Bourgeois public sphere brought a redefinition of accessibility to political and economic freedom for all. Part of this newly found political and economic freedom was a door into the world of art and architecture, where the bourgeois citizen could define a common culture with other citizens and as a part of the advanced nation-state. Two centuries later, around the mid 20th century, politically and economically free cities began looking for global distinction on a domestic level. There was a global need for cities to run a global economy, provide knowledge, and keep the network of global cities together. Architecture became the immediate appeal for cities to distinguish themselves and provide a gateway into the global network of cities, and so the movement for “city branding” began. Cities began to be branded through their redeveloped and new architectural cultural icons, designed by world famous architects. These world famous architects became part of an elite group called “Starchitects”, infamous for their “deconstructivist”, avant-garde pastiche style. Their refusal to provide architecture simply based on local heritage provided instant appeal for a global branding strategy. The cultural icons developed by “Starchitects” contributed not only to a cultural redefinition, but the “city branding” movement attracted highly skilled and educated workers that would bring essential investment to the economies of the cities. The movement for cities to brand themselves through architecture has reached it way around the world, from Toronto to New York, Abu Dhabi to China. Though there was a need for a cities to join a global network economy through the arts, the movement would not have came without the commodification of art and architecture (**).

The commodification of art began in the late 19th century when the art market developed out of the bourgeois movements. Previously controlled by the state (before the separation from the church), the art market became available to those of the middle class who could afford it. Art was easily associated with those who could afford to be educated, which was of course the middle class. These citizens developed “habitus”, the process of being habituated into partaking in art culture, and in turn, they became proponents of defining what was “artistic genius”. Their ability to make themselves their own curator with political and economic power gave them “cultural capital”. Today, the commodification of architecture, and in particular its movements for “city branding” and the use of “Starchitects” to build “cultural capital” can be seen through the corporation and cities who makes themselves curators of “genius” architecture design (**). As Davide Ponzini (2014) points out, in the past two decades, both public (cities) and private (corporations) decision makers have put a large value on “starchitect” designed buildings that promise to push them towards positive economic and urban effects in the post-industrial market. The movement to brand a city through “iconic” architecture from an elite group of architects has been met with criticism both for and against commodifying architecture for this purpose.