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: jasmine_shahin@yahoo.comAbstractThe 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)