If properly considered, every piece of architecture should have authenticity in mind. Even if one said "we are trying to make architecture which is completely inauthentic", at least it is still a position with a point of view, and something great could come out of that philosophy. Of course though one has to ask "What is authentic?". For me, as long as the experience is authentic, then it is successful. Can you have an authentic experience in an inauthentic city? Possibly. And because people HAVE to live with buildings, they become part of the culture whether people realize it or not. As an architect I have to believe that, otherwise the hard work doesn't mean anything. Good for me that it's true. In terms of a city or building referencing local histories, it gets interesting when we look at colonies because often they were planned by people from a different culture with a different agenda. But how important is that history if it was completely inconsiderate to local customs? And where does building from the past end? Does the Mongol invasion in the 13th century need to be represented in the way Hong Kong's satellites operate today? Honestly though, when a bit of land goes from 5000 people to 300,000 people in just a few years, these questions are very difficult to have conclusions to; and because architecture is really just a blunt tool anyway, it can only work subliminally to make an impression. Personally, I think the building in China is moving too fast.