Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
net/publication/249871780
CITATIONS READS
108 598
1 author:
Loretta Lees
University of Leicester
94 PUBLICATIONS 4,306 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Loretta Lees on 23 March 2016.
I Introduction
In the face of several recent proposals for rematerializing social and cultural geography
this paper argues that we should look to the ‘new’ urban geography for inspiration.
Because of its subdisciplinary history – its relatively greater attachment to quantitative
and applied work, the strong influence of political economy, and the long tradition of
empirical and practical research – urban geography was relatively late to embrace the
cultural turn. Partly as a result, it has done so in ways that avoid many of the excesses
that Jackson (2000) and Philo (2000) seek to remedy by ‘rematerializing’ social and
cultural geography. In urban geography, engagement with the cultural turn has not
replaced studies more firmly grounded in material culture or concern with socially
significant differences. These are issues that Jackson (2000: 9) outlines in his call to
revive a ‘ “material culture” perspective’. Philo’s (2000) treatise is more nuanced; he
traces the progression of [social and cultural] geography’s move away from sometimes
avowedly materialist work to a wholehearted engagement with the immaterial, while
recognizing that not all early work shied away from the immaterial nor does all con-
temporary work shy away from the material. However, Philo (2000: 33) is concerned
with geography’s current:
preoccupation with immaterial cultural processes, with the constitution of intersubjective meaning systems,
with the play of identity politics through the less-than-tangible, often-fleeting spaces of texts, signs, symbols,
psyches, desires, fears, and imaginings. I am concerned that, in the rush to elevate such spaces in our human
geographical studies, we have ended up becoming less attentive to the more ‘thingy’, bump-into-able,
stubbornly there-in-the-world kinds of ‘matter’ (the material) with which earlier geographers tended to be more
familiar.
We can see here, and this is reflected in much of the discipline, that the terms material
and immaterial are used loosely and differently. The ‘material’ that Philo wants to rema-
terialize geography with is associated with matter, it is concrete. The ‘material culture’
that Jackson touts is the relationship between people and things, a relationship that
actor network theory and non-representational theory focus on. One of the problems
with the recent call to rematerialize geography is that geographers tend to use the
material and immaterial as a shorthand for tensions between empirical and theoretical,
applied and academic, concrete and abstract, reality and representation, quantitative
and qualitative, objective and subjective, political economy and cultural studies, and so
on. In part this is because there has not been one ‘turn’ but several – cultural, linguistic,
interpretative, postmodern. Yet, for the most part, geographers use these terms inter-
changeably, as I am guilty of in this paper. Defining what we actually mean by material
and immaterial ought to be the first step in rematerializing geography. It means
answering complex questions such as: ‘Does the immaterial have no objective
existence?’ and ‘Are consciousness and will due to material agency?’. Despite the fact
that this report will reveal the myriad ways that (urban) geographers use the terms
material and immaterial, unfortunately it is not the place to deconstruct and indeed
reconstruct these distinctions.
Philo (2000: 31) wants geographers to take seriously both the immaterial and the
material. In this paper, I want to highlight the fact that this is something that contem-
porary urban geography in particular has done as it has taken on board ideas from the
cultural turn. First, however, I want to set the scene by outlining the state of play of
urban geography as we enter the twenty-first century.
Unlike cultural and economic geography, urban geography has, to date at least,
remained free of the prefix ‘new’. Indeed, if anything, since Thrift (1993) proclaimed an
urban impasse – the loss of the urban as both a subject and object of study – urban
geography has almost seemed to be treading water. Thrift’s impasse is still evident as
we enter the twenty-first century, for urban geographers now identify themselves as
cultural geographers, feminist geographers, population geographers, economic
geographers, social scientists, and so on. Although urban geography remains one of the
largest study/research groups in both the IBG and the AAG it is also one of the most
diffuse. The intellectual developments that have swept over and transformed the
discipline over the last decade are usually associated with cultural, economic or
feminist geography, even if many of them have been urban in text and context. Sexual
geographies, for example, are not thought of as situated centrally within urban
geography. Sexy and powerful topics have been produced, yet urban geography is not
associated with them, despite the fact that the city is central to so much of them. As
Johnston (2000: 877) puts it, ‘. . . many of the concerns formerly encapsulated within
urban geography are now studied under different banners’. ‘Urban geography’ is
seemingly not seen to be at the forefront of innovative work in the discipline any more.
In contrast to the apparent decline of urban geography the urban and urbanity have
gone from strength to strength – we have seen the emergence of a ‘new’ urbanism (Katz,
1994), the new city (Sorkin, 1992), the new urban frontier (Smith, 1996a); the popular-
ization of urban living, the promotion of urban livability and urban sustainability
(Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1999; 2000). Despite the
fact that more and more rural areas of the world are becoming urbanized, that more and
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on March 23, 2016
Loretta Lees 103
more people are living in cities, and that urban geography is potentially the most
important and fertile research area in geography, urban geography is apparently
suffering as a subdiscipline.
As we enter the twenty-first century two main concerns are being voiced about urban
geography. First, there is the question of identity. Urban geographers do not agree about
what constitutes ‘urban geography’ (RGS-IBG Urban Geography Research Group, 1998;
2000). The sheer size of the Anglo-American urban geography community has meant
that, in contrast to, say, the social and cultural geography community, there remains a
much more disparate theoretical, philosophical, epistemological, ontological,
conceptual and methodological apparatus out there. Urban geography is hard to tie
down. The fissiparous nature of urban geography was nowhere more apparent than at
the 2000 Institute of British Geographer’s Conference in Brighton where the RGS-IBG
Urban Geography Research Group (UGRG) organized a session titled ‘Urban
geography at the millennium’. In the discussions that took place, the legacy of the
group’s baggage became apparent – some of us are running on the culture treadmill,
others the political-economic treadmill, and others a policy treadmill. The literatures we
read, theories and methodologies we use, are for the most part different; we seldom
come together to learn from each other.
Second, it is a subdiscipline supposedly suffering from a ‘crippling historical legacy’
of outmoded approaches (Johnston, 2000: 877). In the USA, there remains a significant
cohort of ‘traditional’ urban geographers who are educating still more ‘traditional’
urban geographers. In the UK, this is less evident at university level but quite evident
in A level and GCSE work. The legacy at university level is more that ‘straight’ urban
geography courses are now seldom taught.
These concerns may be somewhat particular to the UK, where they reflect the
paranoia that cultural geography is taking over the discipline; that the concept of
culture has become somewhat cannibalizing (Barnett, 1998); that theory only really
happens in cultural studies and in feminism; that urban studies are either not
theoretical enough (Massey, 2001) or alternatively so much so as not to be policy
relevant (Peck, 1999).
American urban geographers, by contrast, seem more confident about their position
at least from the outside. Staeheli et al. (2002) maintain ‘that [urban] geographers are at
the forefront not only of understanding contemporary urban space, but also of
imagining and mapping its futures’. They isolate what they consider to be the major
contributions that American urban geographers have made over the past decade –
spatiality and difference, spatiality and privatization, spatiality and technology,
spatiality and representation, and the glocal city. Each of these is framed by the ‘spatial
turn’ which they argue suggests a new way of looking at cities. They conclude that a
new city is emerging out of the transformations of the public and private spheres, and
an important frontier for urban theory and practice in the twenty-first century will be
understanding the relationship between electronic and technological spaces in relation
to reconstituted and mutated urban space (Staeheli et al., 2002).
The (British) concerns outlined above, I would suggest, mask the continued
importance of urban geography within the discipline as a whole, for a ‘new’ urban
geography has emerged that already deals with many of the issues outlined in recent
calls for the rematerialization of geography.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on March 23, 2016
104 Urban geography
III The ‘new’ urban geography: straddling a move towards and away from the
interpretative turn
With its feet planted, for the most part at least, in the political-economic tradition, the
subdiscipline of urban geography has struggled with the cultural turn of the late 1980s.
The cultural turn was particularly disturbing for urban geography because it
highlighted the unstable nature of the city as both a thing in itself and as an object of
thought and action, (see Pile, 1999, on defining the city). Some urban geographers stood
firm in a position that refused to leave the material world for the immaterial world
(Badcock, 1996). Yet others came to engage with the hermeneutic tradition and
immaterial urban world(s) (see, for example, Beauregard, 1993; Keith and Pile, 1996;
Ruddick, 1996; Wilson, 1998).
Heated debates in urban geography over the process of gentrification mirrored this
state of affairs. Two names headed the gentrification debates of the time: Neil Smith
focused on the material dimensions of the gentrification process, as exemplified in, for
instance, his rent gap thesis; while David Ley focused on the immaterial dimensions of
the process such as ‘new’ middle class attitudes towards the central city (Redfern, 1997:
1275–78; Lees, 2000). Goss (1997: 184) revealed the difficulties that urban geographers
were having with their turn to representation: ‘The more important and difficult task,
however, is to deconstruct the dualistic discourse [of gentrification]: to expose it as a
“representational response” to the much broader social problem of uneven
development and racial inequality . . .’.
Several years on, urban geography and its sister, urban studies, are distinctive in their
simultaneous embracing of, yet withdrawal from, this cultural turn. Perhaps because
the interpretative tradition was taken up more cautiously in urban geography than, for
example, in social and cultural geography, this time lapse has prompted an interesting
state of affairs whereby urban geographers are both increasingly attracted and repelled
by the interpretative tradition. This straddling act mirrors the fact that although urban
geographers have overcome their fear of the subjective and immaterial, that is things
without obvious material expression in the urban world, they remain for the most part
sceptical of totally dematerialized geographies. Most urban theorists now bow to the
representational, but are conscious of the dilemmas of representation. Moreover, they
see the material within the immaterial, and vice versa, as the following thematic look at
contemporary urban geography reveals.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on March 23, 2016
Loretta Lees 105
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on March 23, 2016
106 Urban geography
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on March 23, 2016
Loretta Lees 107
of fulfillment’ (p. 49). Goss mixes the material and the immaterial – he does not seek the
real below the fantasy, rather he seeks to take pleasure ‘in the play of reality and fantasy,
while critically examining how things actually seem . . .’ (p. 49).
Thrift (1996) has voiced concern at the limits of representation encapsulated in the
hermeneutic tradition, charging that the interpretative tradition seems to have paid
scant attention to action, practice and performativity. In moving away from this
tradition, Thrift (2000: 274) seeks to broaden his analysis of space(s) by emphasizing
everyday practices in/of those spaces: ‘These are unreflective, lived, culturally specific,
bodily reactions to events which cannot be explained by causal theories (accurate rep-
resentations) or by hermeneutical means (interpretations).’
Urban geographers have begun to take up this challenge. Unlike Goss (1999), I direct
urban geographers studying the iconography of city landscapes back to an ethno-
graphic approach, arguing that it enables researchers to move away from an emphasis
on representation and interpretation towards theories of practice (Lees, 2001). Adopting
an ethnographic approach to understanding cityscapes does not mean, as Goss (1999)
suggests, abandoning questions about the meaning of built environments. Rather it
means approaching them differently, as an active and engaged process of understand-
ing, rather than as a product to be read off retrospectively from its social and historical
context.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on March 23, 2016
108 Urban geography
Flusty’s thesis unknowingly highlights the problematic connection between reality (the
material) and representation (the immaterial). Beauregard (1999: 393) outlines the
problem: ‘If Los Angeles demands its own language, then the connection between
reality and representation is determinative and the ‘turn to representation’ in urban
theory is rejected. Is this what Dear and Flusty intended?’.
Alongside Beauregard (1999: 393), I would argue that in time to come ‘Postmodern
Urbanism’ will be seen as one of the definitive statements of the Los Angeles School,
‘notable more for its intellectual bravery than theoretical displacement’. In the mean
time, other texts from the LA School are appearing, texts which still seek to connect the
immaterial to the material. For example, Soja’s (2000) survey of urban sociospatial
relations in postmetropolis LA documents the emergence of six different discourses.
The theme of each discourse is illustrated through a series of representative texts, but
once their production and articulation are outlined Soja connects the discourses to
material spaces in the city.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on March 23, 2016
Loretta Lees 109
[Empirically urban geography is] a set of events, meanings, experiences, institutions, and artifacts as they are
understood socially and spatially [and theoretically it examines] . . . the social fragmentation that accompanies
differential access to power and the control of space, and highlights urban processes as they relate to lived
experiences and the production of cultural forms. (defined by the AAG-UGSG in Staeheli et al., 2002)
I want to close this report by outlining what we can learn from the ‘new’ urban
geography, in the face of those concerns over the subdiscipline outlined in section II
and, more specifically, in the face of recent calls for the rematerialization of geography
as outlined in section I. A quick glance at the ‘new’ urban geography (see section III)
tells us that, contrary to popular opinion, the subdiscipline is thriving empirically and
theoretically. Indeed, it is more than thriving; it is located at the cutting edge of geo-
graphical research that seeks to link the material and the immaterial. It is in large
measure the diffuse nature of urban geography that has made this possible, as urban
geographers of different persuasions have become increasingly open-minded to ‘other’
work in the subdiscipline and beyond. This mixing, matching and critical displacement
of ideas has enabled the emergence of a ‘new’ urban geography. Contra Badcock (1996)
urban geographers attracted to the cultural turn are not indifferent to spatial practices.
Moreover, unlike in most other geography subdisciplines, urban geographers
continually have to deal with material space(s) – the city and urban spaces – and their
representation. Thus the connection between the material and the immaterial is perhaps
more immediate. ‘New’ urban geographers are making great strides in deconstructing
the crippling historical legacies seen to be holding us back (for example, the recent
deconstructions of the Chicago School; Sibley, 1995; Dear and Flusty, 1998; Dear, 2000).
Yet, sensibly, unlike in perhaps social and cultural geography, they have not thrown the
baby out with the bathwater.
Jackson (2000) and Philo (2000) are not new in voicing concern over the dematerial-
izing of human geography (see Mitchell, 1995; Sayer, 1993, 1994; Thrift, 1996; Smith,
1996b; 1997). What is new is that geographers might now be prepared to listen. If so,
there are many lessons to be learned from a closer look at contemporary urban
geography. Take my own work in urban geography, which has long sought to straddle
the material and immaterial worlds. This is rooted for me in a refusal to throw out the
baby (materiality) with the bathwater (Marxist political economy). Mirroring my
discussion above, I have moved both to work within the interpretative turn (Lees, 1996)
and more recently to be much more critical of the interpretative turn (Lees, 2001). As I
hope I have illustrated above, such an attitude is typical of recent work in urban
geography. Urban geographers are now quite comfortable with the cultural turn and
are, for the most part, working astride material and immaterial urban worlds.
Interestingly, at the same time as urban geography has taken on board the interpre-
tative turn engaging with language, discourse, culture, the immaterial and so on, it is
also facing moves in another direction towards what Batty (2000) calls ‘the new urban
geography of the third dimension’. Here, the approach is quantitative rather than
qualitative (‘more a geometry than a geography’; p. 484) and studies are focused on
data sets that supposedly allow for ‘a new kind of fine-scale urban geography . . . [from]
data which are sufficiently intensive to detect detailed patterns and morphologies but
also sufficiently extensive to enable these patterns to be generalized to entire metropoli-
tan areas’ (p. 484). Here modelling and GIS are the central techniques, not textual or
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on March 23, 2016
110 Urban geography
semiotic or discourse analysis. This should remind us that the sheer size of the urban
geography community means that it will no doubt mutate in different directions. The
approaches of those urban geographers who work within this ‘new urban geography of
the third dimension’ will no doubt be quite different to the more cultural approaches of,
for example, Light (1999) on city space to cyberspace, Graham and Aurigi (1997) on
urbanizing cyberspace, and Boyer’s (1996; 1999) work on urban regions and the
cyberspace matrix. Over time, however, I hope that these different approaches will
learn from one another, as has happened with other research clusters in urban
geography. The difficult challenge for urban geography is to keep lines of communica-
tion open and not to allow one approach to cannibalize this exciting subdiscipline. For,
as Bridge and Watson (2000: 1) state:
. . . cities need to be understood from a variety of perspectives in the recognition that the cultural/social
constructs, and is constructed by, the political/economic and vice versa. It is only when we adopt such a
complex and textured reading of cities that we will begin to be able to address the pressing social, economic and
environmental questions faced by cities across the world . . .
References
Amin, A., Massey, D. and Thrift, N. 2000: Cities Bridge, G. and Watson, S., editors 2000: A
for the many not the few. Bristol: The Policy companion to the city. Oxford: Blackwell.
Press.
Dear, M. 2000: The postmodern urban condition.
Badcock, B. 1996: Looking glass views of the city. Oxford: Blackwell.
Progress in Human Geography 20, 91–99. Dear, M. and Flusty, S. 1998: Postmodern
Barnett, C. 1998: The cultural turn: fashion or urbanism. Annals of the Association of American
progress in human geography. Antipode 30, Geographers 88, 50–72.
379–94. Department of the Environment, Transport and
Batty, M. 2000: The new urban geography of the the Regions (DETR) 1999: Towards an urban
third dimension. Environment and Planning B: renaissance (available on www.detr.gov.uk).
Planning and Design 27, 483–84. –––– 2000: Our towns and cities: the future:
Beauregard, R. 1993: Voices of decline: the delivering an urban renaissance (available on
postwar fate of US cities. Cambridge, MA: www.detr.gov.uk).
Blackwell.
–––– 1999: Break dancing on Santa Monica Fincher, R. and Jacobs, J., editors 1998: Cities
Boulevard. Urban Geography 20, 396–99. of difference. Minneapolis: University of
Body-Gendrot, S. and Beauregard, R. 1999: Minnesota Press.
Imagined cities, engaged citizens. In
Beauregard, R. and Body-Gendrot, S, editors, Goss, J. 1997: Representing and re-presenting
The urban moment: cosmopolitan essays on the late the contemporary city. Urban Geography 18,
twentieth-century city, Urban Affairs Annual 180–88.
Reviews, Thousand Oaks, London and New –––– 1999: Once-upon-a-time in the commodity
Delhi: Sage, 3–22. world: an unofficial guide to the Mall of
Boyer, M.C. 1996: CyberCities: visual perception in America. Annals of the Association of American
the age of electronic communication. Princeton, Geographers 89, 45–75.
NJ: Princeton University Press. Graham, S. and Aurigi, A. 1997: Urbanising
–––– 1999: Crossing cybercities: urban regions cyberspace. City: Analysis of Urban Trends,
and the cyberspace matrix. In Beauregard, R. Culture, Theory, Policy, Action 7, 18–39.
and Body-Gendrot, S., editors, The urban
moment: cosmopolitan essays on the late twentieth- Harvey, D. 1989: The condition of postmodernity,
century city, Urban Affairs Annual Reviews, Oxford: Blackwell.
Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage, –––– 1996: Justice, nature and the geography of
51–78. difference. Oxford: Blackwell.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on March 23, 2016
Loretta Lees 111
–––– 2000: Spaces of hope. Edinburgh: University Merrifield, A. and Swyngedouw, E. 1996: The
of Edinburgh Press. urbanization of injustice. London: Lawrence and
Hastings, A. 1999a: Discourse and urban change: Wishart.
introduction to the special issue. Urban Studies Miller, D., Jackson, P., Thrift, N., Holbrook, B.
36, 7–12. and Rowlands, M. 1998: Shopping: place and
––––, editor, 1999b: Discourse and urban change identity. London and New York: Routledge.
(special issue). Urban Studies 36, 1–213. Mitchell, D. 1995: There’s no such thing as
culture: towards a reconceptualisation of the
Imrie, R., Pinch, S. and Boyle, M. 1996: idea of culture in geography. Transactions of the
Identities, citizenship and power in cities. Institute of British Geographers NS 20, 102–16.
Urban Studies 33, 1255–61.
Peck, J. 1999: Grey geography? Transactions of the
Jackson, P. 1989: Maps of meaning. London: Institute of British Geographers NS 24, 131–35.
Unwin Hyman. Philo, C. 2000: More words, more worlds:
–––– 2000: Rematerializing social and cultural reflections on the cultural turn and human
geography. Social and Cultural Geography 1, geography. In Cook, I., Crouch, D., Naylor, S.
9–14. and Ryan, J., editors, Cultural turns/geographical
Johnston, R.J. 2000: Urban geography. In turns: perspectives on cultural geography. Harlow:
Johnston, R.J., Gregory, D., Pratt, G. and Watts, Prentice Hall, 26–53.
M., editors, The dictionary of human geography, Pile, S. 1996: The body and the city: psychoanalysis,
Oxford: Blackwell, 875–78. space and subjectivity. London: Routledge.
–––– 1999: What is a city? In Massey, D., Allen, J.
Katz, P. 1994: The new urbanism: towards an archi- and Pile, S., editors, City worlds, London and
tecture of community. New York: McGraw-Hill. New York: Routledge, 4–19.
Keith, M. and Pile, S., guest editors 1996: –––– 2000: Sleepwalking in the modern city:
Imaging the city (special issue). Urban Walter Benjamin and Sigmund Freud in the
Geography 28. world of dreams. In Bridge, G. and Watson, S.,
editors, A companion to the city Oxford:
Lake, R. 1999: Postmodern urbanism? Urban Blackwell, 75–86.
Geography 20, 393–95.
Lees, L. 1996: In the pursuit of difference: repre- Redfern, P. 1997: A new look at gentrification. 1.
sentations of gentrification. Environment and Gentrification and domestic technologies.
Planning, A 28, 453–70. Environment and Planning A 29, 1275–96.
–––– 2000: A reappraisal of gentrification: RGS-IBG Urban Geography Research Group
towards a ‘geography of gentrification’. 1998: Autumn newsletter (available on
Progress in Human Geography 24, 389–408. www.kcl.ac.uk/geog/ugrg).
–––– 2001: Towards a critical geography of archi- –––– 2000: Millennium newsletter (available on
tecture: the case of an ersatz colosseum. www.kcl.ac.uk/geog/ugrg).
Ecumene 8, 51–86. Ruddick, S. 1996: Constructing difference in
Light, J. 1999: From city space to cyberspace. In public spaces: race, class, and gender as inter-
Crang, M., Crang, P. and May, J., editors, Virtual locking systems. Urban Geography 17, 132–51.
geographies: bodies, space and relations, London:
Routledge, 109–30. Sayer, A. 1993: Postmodern thought in
Lynch, K. 1960: The image of the city. Cambridge, geography: a realist view. Antipode 25,
MA: MIT Press. 320–44.
–––– 1994: Cultural studies and ‘the economy
Massey, D. 2001: The Progress in Human stupid’. Environment and Planning D: Society and
Geography lecture: geography on the agenda. Space 12, 635–37.
Progress in Human Geography 25, 5–17. Shaw, W. 2000: Ways of whiteness: Harlemising
Mele, C. 2000a: The materiality of urban Sydney’s Aboriginal Redfern. Australian
discourse: rational planning in the restructur- Geographical Studies 38, 291–305.
ing of the early twentieth-century ghetto. Sibley, D. 1995: Gender, science, politics and
Urban Affairs Review 35, 628–48. geographies of the city. Gender, Place and
–––– 2000b: Selling the Lower East Side: culture, real Culture 2, 37–50.
estate, and resistance in New York City. Smith, N. 1986: Gentrification, the frontier, and
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. the restructuring of urban space. In Smith, N.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on March 23, 2016
112 Urban geography
and Williams, P., editors, Gentrification of the editors, Geography in America at the dawn of the
city, Boston: Allen and Unwin, 15–34. 21st century, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––– 1996a: The new urban frontier: gentrification
and the revanchist city. New York: Routledge. Thrift, N. 1993: The Urban Impasse? Theory,
–––– 1996b: Rethinking sleep. Environment and Culture and Society 10(2), 229.
Planning D: Society and Space 14, 505–506. –––– 1996: Spatial formations. London: Sage.
–––– 1997: Beyond sleep. Environment and –––– 2000: Entanglements of power: shadows? In
Planning D: Society and Space 15, 127–52. Sharp, J., Routledge, P., Philo, C. and Paddison,
–––– 1999: Which new urbanism? New York City R., editors, Entanglements of power: geographies
and the revanchist 1990s. In Beauregard, R. of domination/resistance. London: Routledge,
and Body-Gendrot, S., editors, The urban 269–78.
moment: cosmopolitan essays on the late twentieth-
century city, Urban Affairs Annual Reviews, Wilson, D. 1998: Urban representation as politics.
Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage, Urban Geography 19, 254–61.
185–208.
Soja, E. 2000: Postmetropolis: critical studies of cities Zukin, S., Baskerville, R., Grenberg, M.,
and regions. Oxford: Blackwell. Guthreau, C., Halley, J., Halling, M., Lawler,
Sorkin, M. 1992: Variations on a theme park: the new K., Nerio, R., Stack, R., Vitale, A. and
American city and the end of public space. New Wissinger, B. 1998: From Coney Island to Las
York: Noonday. Vegas in the urban imaginary: discursive
Staeheli, L., Mitchell, D. and Aitken, S. 2002: practices of growth and decline. Urban Affairs
Urban mutations. In Gaile and Wilmott, Review 33, 627–54.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on March 23, 2016
View publication stats