Can Regionalism and Globalism exist in the same place?

To summarize Saskia Sassen, a Global City is a significant place of specialized services that allow the global economy to run. New York City, London, Tokyo, Los Angeles are all examples of global cities. Finding any image of these cities and the first things that stand out are large skyscrapers, many of them in the ever popular International Style. This has caused critical regionalists to reject the idea of a Global City as the universal nature of the style does not invoke any sense of place to these cities. While we can say that Times Square or Central Park provides a sense of place to New York City, we could also say that there are parks and large squares in other global cities too, these are just bigger. I don't believe this is enough to say that New York is "regional."

I would like to pose the argument that we as architects have allowed this to happen. In our quest to build faster, taller, and cheaper, we have created a steel and glass monstrosity that can be plopped down anywhere you can put a foundation. How can we be critical of something that we caused? I would also like to say that while technology got us into this place, it can also lead us out of it and lead us towards designing global cities that promote regionalism. Within the past few years, the introduction of Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) has made a huge impact on the structural world, so far as becoming a part of the International Building Code as of 2015. These "mega-plywood" panels have already been used in structures as tall as 10 stories, providing excellent earthquake resistance and a fire rating similar to that of steel or concrete. I could only imagine where technology will take the architecural world within the next few years. Will we begin to see new technology used in a way that allows a city to be regional and global? Time can only tell.