Telosa presents the promise of a city comprised of equity and sustainability. The website remains consistent with these claims throughout. It aims to remodel and re-envision what it currently means to live in a city and proposes an alternative, utopian solution. Telosa is advertised to be for and accessible to everyone, where diversity is greatly celebrated, and equal economic growth is to be achieved through the concept of “equity” and “giving back to the community” (Telosa | City of the Future, n.d.).
On the other hand, “Here's What Western Accounts of the Kowloon Walled City Don't Tell You”, focuses on a city of the past, dissolved more than twenty years ago in 1994, located in Hongkong. The piece aims to deconstruct the colonial bias present in most recounts of the walled city of Kowloon. Kowloon was a city known for its anarchy, with no real laws and accountability. Once referred to as “a cesspool of iniquity, with heroin divans, brothels and everything unsavory” by a former British colonial governor (WSJ.com Graphics, n.d.), Sharon Lam explores the unseen and less popular stories of a city long gone.
Both websites start off by appealing to the emotions of the audience, through the immediate use of secondary pronouns. Telosa asks the audience to “imagine a city” where, “you always feel….”, “you live…” (Telosa | City of the Future, n.d.). It is potential packaged as a promised future, therefore intrigue quickly develops as we try to navigate the real purpose of the website. The how doesn’t come until very later as you scroll through, which ensures the audience is fully hooked into the premise of the city.
Evocative images are also used very effectively. Images used to depict Telosa often include a vast amount of greenery and people of color to promote sustainability and diversity. However, it could be argued that the extent to which these people are featured in the photos undermines the website’s sincerity and reduces it to a mere performative act. Pictures that illustrate the present-day problems of cities are in black and white and thus very provocative. The black and white not only implies that these problems will be of the past, but without the distraction of color, we are forced to focus on the issue, a binary of right and wrong – this time leaning towards the edge of wrong.
Similarly, the ArchDaily website begins with “…you are eleven years old” (Lam, 2016), the use of “you” is also used for the website’s purpose but this time transporting us to a past we do not know of but a scene we quickly become familiar with and could even claim as ‘ours’, as the description continues. Going out to eat noodles with our families could easily be universal, and this illusion is not shattered until the very last sentences. Here, we are introduced to the idea that despite Kowloon’s lawlessness and reputation, “this wasn’t the only story that the Walled City had to tell.” (Lam, 2016). Stories like these are spotted throughout the article, placed cleverly between the more ‘inhumane’ aspects of the city, maintaining the idea that cities are not only made up of one story.
Within the ArchDaily, the use of images is more perfunctory rather than evocative. Most of the images feature a bird’s eye view of the city which feels very disconnected. The article depicts a raw and unbridled version of the city through its day-to-day stories, and yet the chosen images feel distant, and perhaps this is for ambiguity’s sake.
Interestingly enough, an album taken from the book, “City of Darkness” by Greg Girard and Ian Lambot, which offers a closer look to these everyday lives are hidden away. The images are almost haunting; “post-apocalyptic,” “scary” and “crazy.” (Lam, 2016). They provide the audience the very perspective that the article is trying to deconstruct. Through making these pictures less accessible, the audience is not immediately confronted with them and therefore once they eventually access the pictures, the website’s argument remains with the audience.
In terms of structure, both websites follow a very straightforward navigation, in which neither allows the audience to click on hyperlinks that could deter the intended progression of the website. The ArchDaily article is expected to follow this layout, as the author tries to argue their point in logical succession. However, with Telosa, there is a clear intention behind this. Without hyperlinks, the website can strategically present their ideas on their own terms; first comes their vision, secondly the current problems, then the how. It almost feels like a conversation, but one that the website drives and the audience is forced to follow.
Moreover, there is an overwhelming amount of content, that we leave the website with the bigger picture but not with its smaller details. Perhaps this too was intentional, the purpose of Telosa right now, being to engage the audience with its promise and not so much with the finer details of how, where, and what – casual audiences probably won’t even care about these on their very first visit hence most of the useful information are hidden away in the menu bar, top right.
Both websites also rely on “ethos” to prove the credibility of their arguments, albeit in two different ways. In its “About” section, Telosa relies on the reputations of its founders by presenting their professional achievements. Bjarke Ingels and Marc Lore are both entrepreneurs with backgrounds in economics and some city planning. They are also investors and billionaires which shows their ability to raise capital. However, there is great irony in a city founded by billionaires to be built on equity and fairness.
On the other hand, the ArchDaily displays the credibility of its argument by acknowledging the validity of the opposition. The article doesn’t denounce these claims against Kowloon as simply untruthful, and a product of colonialist history but rather it asks the audience to recognize the flaws of this black and white narrative towards a city mostly framed through western lenses.
Through first glance, these two websites and the two cities it features seems to lie on two opposite ends of the spectrum, and yet they are more similar than advertised. Telosa is a utopia where everything is good; Kowloon is “post-apocalyptic” where everything is bad. Telosa values accountability and the freedom to be who you are as long as you’re “good”, Kowloon lacks any of this and permits everyone the freedom to be “bad”. But looking in closely, both places maintain the idea that not one story makes up a city: Telosa through its diversity, and Kowloon through its lawlessness.
On the other hand, “Here's What Western Accounts of the Kowloon Walled City Don't Tell You”, focuses on a city of the past, dissolved more than twenty years ago in 1994, located in Hongkong. The piece aims to deconstruct the colonial bias present in most recounts of the walled city of Kowloon. Kowloon was a city known for its anarchy, with no real laws and accountability. Once referred to as “a cesspool of iniquity, with heroin divans, brothels and everything unsavory” by a former British colonial governor (WSJ.com Graphics, n.d.), Sharon Lam explores the unseen and less popular stories of a city long gone.
Both websites start off by appealing to the emotions of the audience, through the immediate use of secondary pronouns. Telosa asks the audience to “imagine a city” where, “you always feel….”, “you live…” (Telosa | City of the Future, n.d.). It is potential packaged as a promised future, therefore intrigue quickly develops as we try to navigate the real purpose of the website. The how doesn’t come until very later as you scroll through, which ensures the audience is fully hooked into the premise of the city.
Evocative images are also used very effectively. Images used to depict Telosa often include a vast amount of greenery and people of color to promote sustainability and diversity. However, it could be argued that the extent to which these people are featured in the photos undermines the website’s sincerity and reduces it to a mere performative act. Pictures that illustrate the present-day problems of cities are in black and white and thus very provocative. The black and white not only implies that these problems will be of the past, but without the distraction of color, we are forced to focus on the issue, a binary of right and wrong – this time leaning towards the edge of wrong.
Similarly, the ArchDaily website begins with “…you are eleven years old” (Lam, 2016), the use of “you” is also used for the website’s purpose but this time transporting us to a past we do not know of but a scene we quickly become familiar with and could even claim as ‘ours’, as the description continues. Going out to eat noodles with our families could easily be universal, and this illusion is not shattered until the very last sentences. Here, we are introduced to the idea that despite Kowloon’s lawlessness and reputation, “this wasn’t the only story that the Walled City had to tell.” (Lam, 2016). Stories like these are spotted throughout the article, placed cleverly between the more ‘inhumane’ aspects of the city, maintaining the idea that cities are not only made up of one story.
Within the ArchDaily, the use of images is more perfunctory rather than evocative. Most of the images feature a bird’s eye view of the city which feels very disconnected. The article depicts a raw and unbridled version of the city through its day-to-day stories, and yet the chosen images feel distant, and perhaps this is for ambiguity’s sake.
Interestingly enough, an album taken from the book, “City of Darkness” by Greg Girard and Ian Lambot, which offers a closer look to these everyday lives are hidden away. The images are almost haunting; “post-apocalyptic,” “scary” and “crazy.” (Lam, 2016). They provide the audience the very perspective that the article is trying to deconstruct. Through making these pictures less accessible, the audience is not immediately confronted with them and therefore once they eventually access the pictures, the website’s argument remains with the audience.
In terms of structure, both websites follow a very straightforward navigation, in which neither allows the audience to click on hyperlinks that could deter the intended progression of the website. The ArchDaily article is expected to follow this layout, as the author tries to argue their point in logical succession. However, with Telosa, there is a clear intention behind this. Without hyperlinks, the website can strategically present their ideas on their own terms; first comes their vision, secondly the current problems, then the how. It almost feels like a conversation, but one that the website drives and the audience is forced to follow.
Moreover, there is an overwhelming amount of content, that we leave the website with the bigger picture but not with its smaller details. Perhaps this too was intentional, the purpose of Telosa right now, being to engage the audience with its promise and not so much with the finer details of how, where, and what – casual audiences probably won’t even care about these on their very first visit hence most of the useful information are hidden away in the menu bar, top right.
Both websites also rely on “ethos” to prove the credibility of their arguments, albeit in two different ways. In its “About” section, Telosa relies on the reputations of its founders by presenting their professional achievements. Bjarke Ingels and Marc Lore are both entrepreneurs with backgrounds in economics and some city planning. They are also investors and billionaires which shows their ability to raise capital. However, there is great irony in a city founded by billionaires to be built on equity and fairness.
On the other hand, the ArchDaily displays the credibility of its argument by acknowledging the validity of the opposition. The article doesn’t denounce these claims against Kowloon as simply untruthful, and a product of colonialist history but rather it asks the audience to recognize the flaws of this black and white narrative towards a city mostly framed through western lenses.
Through first glance, these two websites and the two cities it features seems to lie on two opposite ends of the spectrum, and yet they are more similar than advertised. Telosa is a utopia where everything is good; Kowloon is “post-apocalyptic” where everything is bad. Telosa values accountability and the freedom to be who you are as long as you’re “good”, Kowloon lacks any of this and permits everyone the freedom to be “bad”. But looking in closely, both places maintain the idea that not one story makes up a city: Telosa through its diversity, and Kowloon through its lawlessness.
References
Lam, S. (2016, December 02). Here's What Western Accounts of the Kowloon Walled City Don't Tell You. Retrieved October, 2021 from ArchDaily: https://www.archdaily.com/800698/heres-what-western-accounts-of-the-kowloon-walled-city-dont-tell-you
Telosa | City of the Future. (n.d.). Retrieved October, 2021 from Telosa: https://cityoftelosa.com/
WSJ.com Graphics. (n.d.). Kowloon Walled City. From The Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/graphics/kwc/#chapter=history
Lam, S. (2016, December 02). Here's What Western Accounts of the Kowloon Walled City Don't Tell You. Retrieved October, 2021 from ArchDaily: https://www.archdaily.com/800698/heres-what-western-accounts-of-the-kowloon-walled-city-dont-tell-you
Telosa | City of the Future. (n.d.). Retrieved October, 2021 from Telosa: https://cityoftelosa.com/
WSJ.com Graphics. (n.d.). Kowloon Walled City. From The Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/graphics/kwc/#chapter=history