IntroductionIn a recent commentary on the achievements and challenges of the so-called`new cultural geography ' Nigel Thrift (2000a; see also 1999a;2000b) argued that its biggest weakness is its methodological timidity.``Cultural geographers have'', Thrift (page 3) writes,`a llied themselves with a number of qualitative methods, ... most notably in-depth interviews and ethnographic`procedures'. ... [W]hat is surprising is how narrow this range of skills still is, how wedded [cultural geographers] still are to the notion of bringing back the`data', and then re-presenting it (nicely packaged up as a few supposedly illustrative quotations), and the narrow range of sensate life they register.'' Thrift's claim needs qualification. There are human geographers doing methodologically innovative research which is pushing at the boundaries of established conventions.

No abstract

In this paper we offer a discussion of the ‘materiality’ of the urban. This discussion is offered in the context of recent calls in various areas of the discipline for the necessity of ‘rematerializing’ human geography. While we agree with the spirit of these calls, if human geography (and, within that, urban geography) is going to return to the material, let alone articulate some kind of rapprochement between the ‘material’ and ‘immaterial’, it needs to be clear about the terms it is employing. Therefore, and drawing on a range of work from contemporary cultural theory, sociology, urban studies, urban history, architectural theory and urban geography, we sketch out more precisely what a ‘rematerialized’ urban geography might involve. Crucially, we argue that, rather than ‘grounding’ urban geography in more ‘concrete’ realities, paying increased attention to the material actually requires a more expansive engagement with the immaterial. In developing this argument we outline some important conceptual vehicles with which to work up an understanding of the material as processually emergent, before offering two pathways along which the materialities of the urban might be usefully apprehended, pathways that avoid simple oppositions between the ‘material’ and ‘nonmaterial’ while also restating the importance of understanding the complex spatialities of the urban.

No abstract

Libraries, laundrettes, and lidos. Pizzerias, plazas, and playgrounds. Sidewalks, swimming pools, and schools. These are just some of the kinds of spaces and facilities that contribute to the public life of cities. Drawing on the arguments of the sociologist Eric Klinenberg, this article develops the concept of “social infrastructure” as a way to research and value these kinds of spaces. Social infrastructure helps in recognising the public dimensions of often overlooked and undervalued spaces. It draws attention to the breadth, depth, and textures of sociality that can be afforded by different urban environments. In developing the concept of social infrastructure, this article pulls together four related strands of social scientific inquiry: work on infrastructure; publicness and public space; sociality and encounter; and the politics of provision. An infrastructural approach to the topic of public space presents geographers with some productive tools for understanding the public life of cities.