Here's a piece from Ming. For once I'm kind of neutral about it, and I didn't even look at the pictures, really.
The comments as currently trending flow with the piece, reiterating the point I am about to make, so they might be worth a skim.
The whole enterprise in which these people are engaged has the cart before the horse, or possibly they've actually got a cat in the harness backwards.
They're taking about locations, cities, and how photographically interesting or not this city is, or that, and the relative advantages to being a visitor versus a native. Ming talks about how infrequently the light is good in Kuala Lumpur.
The essential problem throughout is that these people are all shooting things. And, since they have read on the internet about The Light! They know they want 'good light'.
Who the hell wants a flattering picture of a building? There are various reasons the building's architect or owner might want some flattering pictures of it, but I certainly don't want to hang one on my wall.
If instead of photographing things, you photograph ideas, then the only quality of a location that matters is whether or not you have ideas there. I am amused that Ming finds it hard to photograph Kuala Lumpur because, basically, it looks wrong.
Nothing looks wrong. Everything looks just like itself. Why on earth would you want to shoot Kuala Lumpur like it's Chicago? Shoot it like itself and you might get something worth keeping. Shoot it like some low rent Chicago and its gonna look like a low rent Chicago.