ABSTRACT
This book began by suggesting that urban theory had run out of steam by the 1990s. While urban questions remained of interest to geographers, few sought to contribute to urban theory per se, or made any definitive claims as to the distinctive nature of urban space. In contradistinction to rural studies – where interest in the definition of the rural rejuvenated the discipline – urban studies became a rather more diffuse endeavour as questions of what constitutes cityness were sidestepped. In Chapter 1, I elaborated on the background to this state of affairs by presenting a brief genealogy of urban theory. This overview identified some of the most widely celebrated explanations of the form and function of cities.Though clearly selective, the conclusion drawn was that it is hard to discern any sense of progress over 150 years of urban studies. In sum, it appeared urban geographers remained fixated on serving up reheated versions of the same old accounts of city life.This was illustrated with reference to the shared emphases of modern and postmodern urban theories (e.g.
