ABSTRACT
In the introduction, I suggested that cities have frequently been identified by geographers as distinctive spaces. In turn, the distinctive nature of cities is deemed to require the development of specific ideas to describe and explain them.These ideas are collectively termed urban theory. However, the notion of theory is a complex one, and much misunderstood. Commonly, it is assumed that theory constitutes a series of big, abstract and grand ideas which help us make sense of the detailed complexity of everyday life. Conventional scientific methodology dictates that such theories can be constructed only on the basis of repeated and verifiable observation of what exists in the world. If these observations and measurements tally with the scientists’ ideas of what is going on in the world, then these theories can be framed as ‘laws’ about how the world works. Urban theory might therefore be characterised as a set of explanations and laws which explain how cities are formed, how they function and how they change. Rather than being concerned with empirical nuance of city life (the daily nitty-gritty of urban existence), we might logically conclude that urban theory is preoccupied with grand themes – and is inevitably more airy-fairy in nature.
