Although is common knowledge that you can propose as an architecture strategy the opposite in a conceptual quest for difference, in the case of great urban development projects such as the Ordos project in inner Mongolia the no context strategy as means of achieving contextual ity doesn’t quite work. Since I reason difference has a proper scale to function. Having a no context strategy in this case eludes the main question, which is how to have a better collective architecture response to the client. By the way a client who has its own spatial, cultural, economic, social and historic context. Building 100 and plus introspective objects makes everything boring. It would be infinitely better to have them interact. In any case, the good thing for us, is that if they build first some of them and afterwards the rest (I think there are two phases to the project) it would create a context (a forest) of introspective objects in which the reaming architects could decide whether to do the same or start establishing spatial relationships, thus creating quality context and not only accidental context.
Indeed it´s reminds me of the zombie’s paradox: the living dead, a concept which’s definition is contradictory in nature, no context being a context in its self is nonetheless sick in nature, is what architecture should not do and or urbanism not encourage.

Obligation
Reinvents
Disneyland
On
Suburbia

this is awful, yet more architectural follies built into this terrible masterplan. Utterly pointless.