EURAU 2014 ICOMPOSITE CITIES I November 12-14, 2014,
IIstanbul-TurkeyJasmine Shahin
Dubai: City Branding or Place Making?FOR THE EURAU 2014:
Composite CITIES
Jasmine ShahinDepartment of Architecture School of Architecture,
Art and DesignDe Montfort University, Leicester, UKEmail:
[email protected] following paper will
investigate the socio-urban phenomenon of Dubai, proposing that the
phantasmagoric shadows detected through the citys socio-urban image
could be possibly translated through a critically informed
hermeneutic approach. The paper will argue that Dubai epitomizes
the dichotomy between global and local, where the increasingly
fading boundaries between these two concepts are rendering the
overall experience as well as perception of Dubai highly illegible.
Through a hermeneutic analysis of Dubai, the paper will attempt to
provide an interpretive understanding of the city not only as a
politically manufactured brand image, but also as a unique social
space. For, the fact that a brands image acts as a mediator between
the brands equity and its socially perceived value, hence
representing the essence of its being, necessitates that the brand
image must reinforce its physical market existence through some
constantly negotiable yet reaffirming social discourse.
Keywords
Dubai, city branding, urbanism, philosophical hermeneutics,
phenomenology.Introduction
The city as a subject occupies a prominent position in the works
of many urban, architectural and social theorists alike. Despite a
critical disparity among the many proposed methodologies, few of
them have denied the entwined relationship between society and the
typological development of the built environment. While an
understanding of this relationship requires a historic
investigation of the physical development of these two codependent
entities, many current theoretical approaches are intentionally
blind to the presence of some subjective and psychological
constructs that are inherent in the formation of socio-urban
phenomena. For, the city is an open playground of multiple
discourses, which aim at revealing some cultural, social, political
and ideological tensions that are embodied in the lived experience
of the city itself, in which every building, path, node and
curbstone speaks of some important events that were meaningful
enough to remain encapsulated in the collective memory of its
people. Regretfully, today's global cities seem to have lost
connection with Man, who became a hermit endlessly wandering the
vicinities of his muted city, looking for the faintest sign that
might remind him of the meaning of being in the world. In order to
explore this proposition, the following paper will use the city of
Dubai as a chief subject of investigation, an example chosen for
its prominent position not only as a successful urban project, but
also as a tangible testament to the powerful role played by
ideology, branding and capital in shaping our understanding of
today's global cities.The intriguing aspect in Dubais relatively
young story, and which makes it a subject worthy of serious
investigation, transcends the superficial advertising of the city
as a space of glitz and glamour. For, Dubai is not only a
phantasmagoric collection of architectural images, but is also a
politically and socially manufactured hybrid of contrasting
aspirations, motives and fantasies. For this reason, our
understanding of Dubai must move beyond its classification as a
plutocratic system, given that its manufactured dialogues include
more than its rulers and decisions makers, as these dialogues
extend themselves to reflect the mode of being of its citizens and
consumers, who must be seen as integral contributors to the citys
larger hermeneutic circle. In other words, the facets of this
discourse include more than the citys market driven nature, its
branding techniques and its production modes, representing, yet
rather less evidently, a highly diverse population in the process
of developing a genuine internal dialogue with the citys
politically manufactured brand image. Similarly, the argument that
a brand image must be acquiescent enough to accommodate the shifts
in social values, cultural needs and political agendas reflects
itself on most global cities today, as they strive to sustain or
expand their touristic market share. Unlike conventional brand
images, it shall be argued that the city image is shaped through
some invisible bonds that relate its historical physical
development to the evolution of its socio-cultural body, hence
representing a collective image of its residents cultural, social,
political, and economic ideologies, where I constantly refers to
some internally shared and reciprocated values, while Other refers
to an externally negotiated understanding. Accordingly, the paper
will employ a philosophical hermeneutic approach that aims at
examining the role of projection, introjection, and phantasy as
critical constituents in the interpretive process. In addition to
their direct implications on the hermeneutic praxes of history,
language and experience, these concepts are tightly related to the
phenomenology of perception, or the phenomenology of phantasy, as
described by Edmund Husserl in Phantasy, Image, Consciousness and
Memory (2005). For, perception is considered as a primary step for
identification, where the physical encounter with an architectural
stimulus must instigate an individuals need for interpretive
understanding. This need stems from Mans recurrent search for his
true being within the expanding environment around him, and this
being, I shall argue, resides within the many facets of the
architectural discourse itself. The role of imagination in this
interpretive process is critical to our current discussion of
Dubais urban discourse, as it highlights the role that
architecture, along with its mental interpretation, can possibly
play in establishing a shared horizon between the citys externally
perceived image and its internally developing dialogues. Through
Husserls argument, it is assumed that imagination is one form of
phantasy, and that the bringing to appearance of a mental phantasy,
as in the case of an architectural design, into a physically
experienced phenomenon represents what he refers to as phantasy
presentation. Yet, the physical experience of this phantasy
requires a consistent engagement with its historic, social,
cultural, and most importantly symbolic content, which in turn will
reveal new unforeseen possibilities of the nature and motives
behind the phantasy itself. As such, the main enquiry of this paper
is concerned with the relationship between phantasy presentation
and perceptual apprehension, which according to Husserl is a
multilayered process controlled by an individuals ability and
willingness to decipher the enigmatic content of the image.
Furthermore, perceptual comprehension is guided by a set of
invisible layers of past experiences and social guidelines, or what
Hans Georg Gadamer refers to in Truth and Method (2004) as
prejudices. These include social traditions, belief systems,
cultural upbringing, political economy, and ideological
affiliations. For example, the architects mental image is
transformed into a physical reality through many external
guidelines, including the clients brief, financial budget, time
frame for completion, the specificities of the site and the
building codes for that specific geographical region. The
introjection of these variables into the architects own mental
phantasy shapes the formation of the project and its realized
object image. Still, introjection here also refers to the
architects own development through an accumulation of past
experiences and knowledge, confirming Gadamers argument that long
before we understand ourselves through the process of
self-examination, we understand ourselves in a self-evident way in
the family, society and the state in which we live . . . the
prejudices of the individual, far more than his judgments,
constitute the historical reality of his being, (Gadamer, 2004).
Still, the completed project will not reveal all of these
components at once, for the projected image, as a pictorial
representation of the architects phantasy, will coincide in form
but rarely in content to the original intentions of its author.
This is due to the varying interpretations that this image will
engender in the minds of its perceivers, who in turn will ascribe
different meanings to the symbolic content of the building,
depending on their own set of prejudices and disparate modes of
projection. The concept of projection, then, becomes a final step
in the interpretive process, representing the essence of our own
being-in-the world as suggested by Martin Heidegger in Being and
Time (1992). Heidegger refers to projection as a special state of
pure perception, which, unveils without making what is unveiled as
such into an object of contemplation, (Heidegger, 1992). In other
words, projection allows man to experience the many possible
meanings of his own existence in relation to other physical or
worldly objects around him. For, through projection we not only
acquire a sense of self but ascertain our belonging to a larger
community of meanings, where the power of projection resides in its
ability to bridge the gap between our perception of the real and
our conception of an ideal world. Similarly, Gadamer argues for the
value of projection as a form of critical reflection, based on the
ability of human imagination to build and project images from one
source onto another, an act that requires some form of sensus
communis, or common sense that he claims is to be, what gives the
human will its direction is not the abstract universality of reason
but the concrete universality represented by the community of a
group, a people, a nation, or the whole human race (Gadamer,
2004).Dubais Political Phantasies: Beyond Authorial Intention
Given its distinct historical, economic, political and cultural
development story, Dubai was privileged to surface on the global
map with readily available urban references. Dubais early formation
years were also influenced by the presence of some hegemonic
others, such as past colonizers, imported labor, and above all a
hierarchal tribal heritage. All these factors contributed greatly
to the formation of Dubais personality, acting as introjections
that not only define but also mask the appearance of Dubais Real
self. Granted, Dubais architectural products are arguably
containers of cultural and historical realities, acting as
reservoirs of some shared social values, and pointing beyond
themselves to some significant moments in the citys development
story. Even though a detailed discussion of Dubais urban
development is beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to
note that phantasy is among the most powerful ingredients in the
citys history. This claim can be traced back to the political
visions of its former and current rulers, who saw urbanism as an
integral tool in communicating with a more developed West.
According to Jim Krane in City of Gold (2009), in the early 1960s,
Sheikh Rashids dream of putting Dubai on the map made him venture
into some of the grandest projects in the region. For this reason,
he has been constantly accused of having an edifice complex, of
being insensitive to cultural heritage and above all of being a
gambler. These accusations have been readily transferred to his
heir, Sheikh Mohammed, whose once mocked fantasy was to turn Dubai
into a prime touristic destination. Despite the validity of some of
these criticisms, it is undisputable that Dubai is one of the most
prominent urban examples today, hosting the worlds largest
building, the largest man made port, the largest man made islands,
an advanced infrastructure, and some of the most luxurious resorts
and vacation spots in the world. Yet, such achievements were earned
at some high price, including the destruction of architectural
heritage, the dissolution of the tribal council, and above all an
increasing GDP leverage that led Dubai into a severe crisis back in
2008.
The growing pains of Dubai were a direct result of its fast
paced urbanism, which neglected the value of social input as an
integral voice in the citys urban discourse, an observation noted
by Hashim Sarkis and Nasser Abulhasans UN report in 2005. Still, in
criticizing the Dubai project one must also consider the effects of
globalization on the young city, its social body, its architectural
production, and above all its policy makers. Until 2008, most
international headlines saw in Dubai a dizzying urban phenomenon,
with a real estate market that raises many doubts regarding the
validity, sustainability and efficiency of its urban developments.
One typical investigation could be seen through The Sunday Times
reportage titled Desert Storm (2005) by Peter Conradi, who wondered
if Dubai is a bubble about to burst or a no-lose deal? Conradis
article establishes some facts regarding Dubais real estate actions
during 2002-2005, a period that relied extensively on iconic
structures and star-architects in building the city image.
Architecture as a universal linguistic medium enabled Dubai to
bridge the imagined gulf between itself and the West, creating an
urban image that aims at increasing the citys financial gains and
at establishing a shared horizon of intercultural interests.
Arguably then, Dubais 2008 financial crisis did not only strip the
city of its economic glory, but has also resulted in some major
symbolic losses in the citys architectural ego. On the 4th January
2010, Dubai set the stage for the inauguration of the Worlds
tallest building (initially called Burj Dubai), revealed at the
unprecedented height of 829.8m. The Burj was renamed at the final
countdown, resulting in a state of collective shame, when amidst
the lavish celebrations of the day HH Sheikh Mohammed declared
that, the highest point in the world should be linked to the big
names and I announce today (Monday) the opening of Burj Khalifa Bin
Zayed. Many media reporters, such as Hugh Tomlinson and David
Robertson, saw the event as a humiliating statement that confirms
the reality that Dubais achievements are not its own as long as Abu
Dhabi is picking up the tab. For this reason, it could be argued
that Dubais urban activities until 2008 were little beyond
corporate shares in its expanding financial investments. Iconic
architecture, as hyper commodity, played some role in the stability
of the citys economic stance, and became an imaginary
representation of Dubais place in the global race for excellence, a
proposition confirmed in HH Sheikh Mohammeds first published
manifesto, My Vision (2006). In 2006, Sheikh Mohammed saw Dubais
position in relation to a fast changing world, immersed in
technological advancement and commercial competition. This limited
perspective represents the model of external communication that
Sheikh Mohammed believed best fit for Dubai, where the process for
building superior states to him was a long process of learning,
planning, and embracing the advancements of other cultures, while
tailoring them to the particular needs of his growing society.
Still, his urban vision was lacking an authentic social inclusion,
where what he refers to as cultural needs has been architecturally
translated rather icon-ically, as in Burj Al Arabs sailboat image
or Burj Khalifas faintly recognizable concept of the desert rose,
as proposed by the towers designer Adrian Smith of SOM, (Smith,
2008). Such limited perspective was highly criticized by Western
critical thinkers, like Mike Davis, who saw Dubais urban project as
a consequence of the dialectic of uneven and combined development,
of a backward society that, takes not their beginnings, nor the
stages of their evolution, but the finished product itself. In fact
it goes even further; it copies not the product as it exists in its
countries of origin but its ideal type, (Davis, 2007). The effects
of the 2008 crisis could be noticed in Sheikh Mohammeds second book
Flashes of Thought (2013), portraying what could be considered a
poetic turn in his political, economic and social development
strategies. In here, Sheikh Mohammed considers the concept of
social happiness, or customer satisfaction if I may propose, as a
chief criterion for development. This change in perspective could
be also seen in many of the citys reformation strategies that aim
at controlling property rents, readdressing ownership policies, and
ensuring customer satisfaction through social surveys that test the
efficiency of provided services and urban facilities. In contrast
to his previous emphasis on financial profit, Sheikh Mohammed
believes that Burj Khalifa represents regional pride, as much as it
points at some cultural affinity between East and West, where the
Burj is no longer symbolic of his own personal achievements, but is
representative of the collective effort of some of the greatest
minds, a motto that has been espoused in Dubais EXPO 2020 bid,
Connecting Minds, Creating the Future. For him, great buildings
reinforce the image of the city and its people collectively, which
in turn establishes stronger bridges of trust with the outer world,
(Al Maktoum, 2013).Urban Branding: Establishing the External
Discourse
The Burj Khalifa project established Dubai as a leading urban
brand, connecting East and West while resonating to all humanity
some shared values of progress and technological advancements.
Still, the Burj, as another icon in Dubais saturated skyline,
emerges as an integral part in the citys lager marketing plan,
symbolizing a tangible presentation of its rulers aspirations for
effective communication. The Burj also mirrors many of Dubai Brands
promises of luxury, uniqueness and exclusivity, as highlighted on
the official web site of Dubais Municipality of Commerce and
Tourism, whose chief aim is to advertize Definitely Dubai as a
prime travelling destination. Just like any other marketing
campaign, Dubais storyboard does not deny its market laden
intentions, yet it makes a crystal-clear distinction between
Definitely Dubai, as a touristic brand, and what they refer to as,
an everyday brand Dubai. This distinction aims at identifying the
different levels of perceptual apprehension that relate to Dubais
image, where the former aims at establishing communication bridges
with the external world, while the latter aims at building some
forms of socio-urban identification.
The success of Dubais touristic campaign could be traced through
the numbers of tourists, rates of hotel occupancy, and the
escalading numbers of new residents. According to Dubais Statistic
Center, Dubais population increased exponentially from 862,387
people in 2000, to an impressive 2,213,845 people in 2013. As for
tourism, the number of sold hotel nights show a similar growth
rate, with 70% occupancy in 2011, 74% in 2012, and 78% in 2012 .
Based on these findings, it could be argued, then, that project
Definitely Dubai has achieved many of its goals using architecture
and urbanism as its chief tools. Despite such results,
architectural and social critics still find in this image a
representation of a distorted reality, a hallucinatory pastiche of
the big, the bad and the ugly, (Davis, 2006). A similar observation
by architect Rem Koolhaas emphasizes that the citys skyline has
become a collage of unsynchronized icons, where the addition of new
icons results in an experience of perpetual hollowness, (Koolhass,
et al. 2007). These negative readings, while partly justified,
point at some major deficiencies in the critical analysis of the
city, where the genesis of such misinterpretation lies in the
intentional neglect of everyday Dubais historical, social and
cultural developments, which constitute a big share in the citys
internal socio-urban discourse.Granted, it could be argued that
Dubai succeeded in positioning itself as an exclusive brand image,
with an established external dialogue that aims at negotiating the
contrasting perceptions of the city. Still, it must be noted that
the process of branding in cities needs to acknowledge local
background, culture and history, where turning a town into a brand
therefore means building perceptions among strategic audiences,
turning it into a unique and attractive destination, for companies,
individuals, cultural or educational organizations that might think
of moving there. (Anttiroiko, 2014). For, the consumption of places
is comparable to the consumption of other products, given that it
involves the simultaneous participation of place manufacturers and
consumers alike. While manufacturers of city brands shape the
overall image of the event, consumers, as in tourists or the
residents themselves, complement the process by ascribing meaning
to the created city image. This image is then based on, attributes,
functional consequences (or expected benefits) and the symbolic
meanings or psychological characteristics that consumers associate
with specific place, which in turn affects its positioning (Groves
and Go, 2009). Still, there is a dialectic tension that arises
between cultural identity and commercial interests, where
communities are constantly striving for a genuine depiction of
their lived and cultural realities, while the different interest
groups are merely concerned with theatrical representations. Yet,
the presence of such tensions does not always behold negative
connotations, as it possibly reveals the presence of some
polarities, seeking resolution through constant social
interpretation of the truth content of the brand image itself.
Accordingly, city branding is possibly understood as built brand
identity, which influences the consumption attitude and loyalty of
tourists and residents alike, (Raffelt, 2012). Therefore, it could
be argued that one merit of combining architecture and marketing
lies in the possibility of forging some powerful communication
channels for enforcing group identity, while relaying the brands
core values to the world.Social Projections: Following the Traces
of an Internal DiscourseGiven all of the above, it is only valid to
finally establish the method through which we can hermeneutically
reveal the extent of truth in Dubais internal urban discourse
without falling prey to future criticisms of subjectivity.
According to Ursula Raffelt in Architectural Branding (2012), one
possible way to measure the effects of architectural branding on
socio-urban dialogue is through brand-related performance
indicators, tested against the brands values and projected image.
For, what is needed is to understand how Dubais urban and
architectural images manifest themselves as substances in the
societys aesthetic experience of the everyday Dubai brand, where,
substance is understood as something that supports us, although it
does not emerge into the light of reflective consciousness, it is
something that can never be fully articulated, although it is
absolutely necessary for the existence of all clarity,
consciousness, expression and communication, (Gadamer, 1986).
Accordingly, the remaining section shall investigate this
proposition by means of comparing Dubais brand values to its
general social perception, employing the findings of a social
survey conducted between March 2014 and May 2014. The objectives of
the survey are twofold: first, to determine the validity and facets
of uniqueness in Dubais architectural brand campaign, and second,
to uncover the many possible readings of the citys projected image
as symbolically understood by its everyday residents. The
hypothesis is that Dubais architectural products are unique in
their formal appearance, and in turn do possess some layers of
hidden symbolism that relate directly or indirectly to some
socially manufactured values. The 10 questions survey was published
through social media, and targeted professional expatriates from
age groups 18 onwards. The inclusion of other sectors was
impertinent for the current paper as a result of many factors,
including language barriers and detachment from spectacular city
events. The total number of included respondents is 224, showing a
highly varied resident population with a major concentration in the
Arabic sector (Fig. 04), an observation that highlights Dubais
imperative role as a promising Middle Eastern haven for young
Arabs, especially after the political upheavals that swept the Arab
world since 2010. The fact that 96% of the respondents were able to
identify a monochromatic silhouette of Dubais skyline validates the
brands success in manufacturing an instantly recognizable image,
with 51% agreeing on the uniqueness of Dubai as an attractive
working and living urban package. According to 86% of the
respondents Burj Khalifa is the most representative building of the
city, alluding to some positive values of achievement, uniqueness,
beauty, luxury, presence, memory, elegance, heroism, creativity,
power, perseverance, and exposure. According to one respondent, it
[Burj Khalifa] represents Dubais stance in the world, summarizes
its development and growing wealth, and puts Dubai on the map.
Still, some respondents, who affirm Burj Khalifas dominance over
the citys skyline, express critical concerns regarding the embodied
messages in Dubais overall architectural image, where to him/her,
ambition and vision outweigh the means to achieve it. Similarly,
when asked to describe the whole city using one word, responses
varied widely, with some of the mostly used positive adjectives
being unique, cosmopolitan, fighter, fast, fantastic, fancy,
growing, luxurious, promising, innovative, organized, dynamic and
beautiful; as opposed to some negative perceptions, including
artificial, crowded, materialistic, Disney-ish, and a salad bowl.
These descriptions represent some of the many architectural
dialogues that manifest themselves in Dubais socio-urban discourse.
For, the affluence that accompany Dubais architectural image poses
many challenges on its growing society, which is always playing a
catch up role with the citys imagined and symbolic projections.
This proposition is supported by the responses acquired on the last
two questions of the survey, where respondents were expected to
define Dubai in relation to other known brands. While the majority
of the respondents (76%) saw an affinity between Dubai and globally
renowned luxury brands, such as Mercedes, Ferrari, Rolls Roys,
Porsche, Gucci, Rolex, Graff, Hermes, Chanel, Louis Vuitton and
Armani, some detected a resemblance to technology brands, like
Apple, Google, Sony and Samsung (Fig. 06).
What these interpretations inform us is that Dubai has succeeded
in positioning itself within the league of luxury brands, using
architecture to communicate its aspirations for uniqueness,
dynamism and economic affluence. As such, it is possible to argue
that there exists no inconsistency between the intended values of
Dubai, or its brand equity, and the imaginary content of its
architectural representations, which in themselves could be
understood as forms of thrown-ness or projections onto the global
scene. However and as previously postulated, the problems are
generally noticeable on the symbolic levels of the urban discourse,
where societys inability to identify with the city beyond its mere
physical shell points at some deficiency in the communication
process. For this reason, and by looking at some specific
architectural examples such as Burj Khalifa, it was intriguing to
note than there exists some traces of an emerging internal dialogue
that is trying to make sense of Dubais relevance as a genuine lived
experience. This dialogue is arguably moving beyond mere perceptual
affirmation of the Burjs authorial intentions to the larger
horizons of imaginative interpretation, echoing not only the global
dilemmas of modern Mans existence but also mirroring his need for
belonging to a larger meaningful community. For, the lived
experience around the vicinities of the Burj represents a daily
ritual for many Dubaiians, who seek the area for leisure or
shopping. Yet, aside from the commercial rituals, the Burj
manifests itself as the site for national festivities and
celebrations, simulating the role of many similar urban spaces,
such as New Yorks Times Square. As such, it could be argued that
the icon in its domineering presence has replaced what could be
referred to as conventional spaces of worship or social
congregation, where todays urban nomads are constantly engaging
dialogically to retrieve some hidden meanings from their
surrounding urban structures. This could be seen again through the
above mentioned survey, where the respondents detected in Burj
Khalifa many underlying metaphors, like a social mirror, a rocket,
a vertical city, stacks of money, a magic stick, a tree (form of
new life), hanging gardens, a Gothic cathedral, and most
importantly a ladder to heaven. While many of the metaphors point
at a materialistic postmodern culture, with the Burj representing
the temple of a global capitalist sect, some of them have not lost
faith in the possibility that Dubais icons could still host some
magical divine presence. Conclusion It could be concluded that the
enigmatic content of Dubais architecture is possibly understood in
the light of its marketed values and its manufactured customer
perception. Yet, it is evident that the citys urban image has been
induced following a one sided political phantasy that marginalizes
the effects of cultural differences, while also failing to
recognize the vital social role that architecture can purport into
peoples understanding of their own being. In spite of that, social
imagination, as one form of interpretive understanding, plays a
crucial role in establishing the basis for a dynamic socio-urban
discourse, where both architecture and society disclose aspects of
their Imaginary content and Real self. On the one hand, it could be
argued that the univalent nature of many of Dubais icons signal at
the presence of a highly fragmented society that seeks some form of
cultural coherence through a shared understanding of the citys
simple architectural metaphors. On the other hand, it is possible
that Dubais spectacular urban forms anticipate cultural depth
through constant historical validation and social dialogue. For,
Dubais apparently fragmented cosmopolitan social body is not
completely different from other traditional societies that possess
many subdued or neglected idiosyncrasies. For, the
conceptualization of society as a uniform body endows on it some
form of universalism, or an absent fullness, where the universal
symbol, in the form of architecture or society, ceases to have
meaning on its own, as it is constantly filled with peculiarities
that are then redefined into a shared horizon. The emergence of
such horizon sustains continuous social discourse, alluding to new
forms of social negotiation and identification. The role of
symbolism in shaping society understanding of the built environment
is possibly reinforced by the urban forms ability to instigate
multiple meanings to its different social sectors. Granted, the
symbolic content of Dubais social and urban morphologies is
arguably dependent on the production of empty signifiers, which
allow a discourse to be filled with particularistic and potentially
incommensurable contents whilst maintaining a universal
representation, (Laclau, et al., 2006). Such universality allows
the signifier to host a variety of meanings, and to possibly
decrease the communication gap among internal, as well as external,
intended audience. Understood as such, it could be finally proposed
that Dubai, as a universal brand, anticipates the presence of an
Other, which manifests itself in the form of a linguistic cultural
matrix that contributes, directly and indirectly, to the
establishment of some genuine socio-urban discourse. For, both
concepts of the symbolic and the imaginary relate directly to
social identity, allowing architecture and urbanism to resonate to
all human beings, without being confined to the boundaries of
specific cultural constructs.
References
References
Al Maktoum, HH Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid, Flashes of Thought,
Dubai: Motive Publishing, 2013.
Al Maktoum, HH Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, My Vision: Challenges
in the Race for Excellence, Arabic 3rd ed., Dubai: Motivate
Publishing, 2006.
Anttiroiko, Ari-Veikko, The Political Economy of City Branding,
New York: Routledge, 2014.
Davis, Mike, "Fear and Money in Dubai," New Left Review, vol.
41, September - October 2006, pp. 41-68.Dubai Statistics Center,
online, http://www.dsc.gov.ae/Reports/DSC_SYB_2013_01%20_%2003.pdf
(accessed May 10th 2014).
Gadamer, Hans Georg, The Relevance of the Beautiful, Cambridge:
The Cambridge University Press, 1986.Gadamer, Hans-Georg, Joel
Weinsheimer, and Donald G. Marshall,Truth and Method, 2nd ed.
London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004.Government
of Dubai, Definitely Dubai,
http://www.dubaitourism.ae/definitely-dubai/destination-brand,
(accessed on May 3rd 2014).
Groves, Robert and Frank Go, Place Branding: Glocal, Virtual and
Physical Identities, Constructed, Imagined, Experienced, New York:
Palgrave MacMillan, 2009.
Heidegger, Martin, "Building, Dwelling, Thinking," in Basic
Writings, by David Farrell Krell, New York: Harper Collins, 1992,
pp. 344-363.
Hugh Tomlinson and David Robertson, Burj Dubai becomes Burj
Khalifa as Emirate loses out on crowning glory, The Sunday Times,
January 5th 2010, online,
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article2605677.ece
(accessed May 10th 2014).
Husserl, Edmund, Phantasy, Image, Consciousness and Memory
(1898-1925), translated by John B. Brough, The Netherlands:
Springer, 2005.
Koolhaas, Rem, Ole Bouman,and Mitra Khoubrou, and Mark Wigley,
Al Manakh, Netherlands: Stichting Archis, 2007.Krane, Jim. City of
Gold: Dubai and the Dream of Capitalism, New York: St. Martin's
Press, 2009.
Laclau, Ernesto , Judith Butler and Slavoj iek, Contingency,
Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left, London:
Verso, 2006.
Peter Conradi, Desert Storm, The Sunday Times, April 23rd 2005,
online,
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/property/overseas/article1774312.ece
(accessed May 8th 2014).
Raffelt, Ursula, Architectural Branding: Understanding and
Measuring Its Relevance for Brand Communication, Mnchen:
Frdergesellschaft Marketing, 2012.
Sarkis, Hashim, and Nasser Abulhasan. Urbanization and the
Changing Character of the Arab City, Publication, New York: United
Nations - ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR WESTERN ASIA,
2005.
Smith, Adrian, "Burj Dubai: Designing the World's Tallest," in
CTBUH 2008 - Tall and Green: Typology for a Sustainable Urban
Future, (Dubai: Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat ,
2008): 35-52.Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 3 - SOM Conceptual
Inspirations for Burj Khalifa
Figure 7 - Burj Khalifa and Social Perception (by author)
Figure 6 - Survey Analysis of Dubai's Brand Perception
Figure 5 - Analysis of Sample's Age Group and Mode of
Residency.
Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 5 - Analysis of Sample's
Nationalities by Region.
Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 4 - Dubai Population Growth vs.
Urban Expansion
Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 2 - Burj Khalifa (by author).
Jasmine Shahin, Mphil
Dubai based Interior Designer and adjunct professor of
Architecture and Interior Design at the American University in
Dubai. With over 10 years of professional experience in the Middle
East and a Masters degree in Architectural Theory from De Montfort
University in Leicester, UK, Shahin is currently a PhD candidate in
architectural and urban theory, investigating the role of
phenomenological hermeneutics (especially that of Hans Georg
Gadamer), critical theory and psychoanalysis in understanding
todays global spaces and architectural practices.
Burj Khalifa
The Cathedral, the Rocket, the Stack of Money, the Magic Wand,
the Ladder to Heaven and the Shard
Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1 - Dubai Urban Development (by
author)