What does the modern city do to ethnos? In what ways does urban geography contribute to reinforcing communal belonging or fostering cosmopolitan experience? How far, if at all, does modern urbanity diminish communal strife by blurring ethno-religious divide, by facilitating mixing and mingling, and establishing interpersonal trust? “Primordialists” would expect that ethno-religious groupings would persist over time, because members are born into their natural ethnic or religious formations. In this perspective, ethnic groups are seen as primordial, permanent and bounded entities with clear lines of cultural demarcation, and identifi ed by such objective characteristics as a common ancestry, language, physical features, and religion (Geertz). This way of thinking has been seriously challenged by “instrumentalists” who suggest that an ethnicity, rather than being a natural group, is constructed by members’ invariable reference to an imagined common kinship origin. This means that ethno-religious groups are dynamic beings, which are subject to continuous deconstruction, shifting boundaries, and reconstruction,1 a process that has direct bearing on interand intracommunal interactions. In other words, “communities” are not simply introverted and exclusive collectives whose relation with others is defi ned merely in terms of confl ict. Rather, communities also attempt to overcome their differences and live together. They have done so through the lived experience of sharing histories, misfortunes (wars, crises, and natural dangers), work environment, and living space-as well as undertaking mutual institutions. In short, humans have historically exhibited a capacity to coexist and cooperate across religious or ethnic divides. Yet coexistence and sharing do not take place in a vacuum. They take shape under specifi c structures and possess particular geographies.