In 2005 Gilles Duranton and Andrés Rodriguez-Pose signed a paper entitled « When economists and geographers collide, or the tale of the lions and the butterflies ». Let's briefly recall the demonstration of the two authors, one being a geographical economist, the other an economic geographer. Through analyses of cross citations and behaviors at conferences, they conclude to a relation of "mutual ignorance, rather than outright discord" between the researchers of these two communities. Looking at their scientific approaches, they underline two radically different ways of proceeding: the lions "improving and expanding their tricks", laboring "the same core questions over and over again", and the butterflies "freely flying the fields of knowledge with the aim of tasting the best from every flower they visit". The two authors note that both communities are in fact interested in the same questions (among others, the geography of cities), but that there is very little scientific cross-fertilization At the same period (2007), a similar debate took place in the French scientific journal L'Espace Géographique: Denise Pumain, Jacques-François Thisse, Isabelle Thomas and Bernard Walliser tried to explore the relationship between New Economic Geography and Geography. Jacques-François Thisse conceded at this occasion that "En ce qui concerne les échelles spatiales, il est exact que la plupart des économistes n'ont pas compris grand-chose à cette question 1 ». One specific point in this debate deserves to be focused on, that of spatial scales, that is maybe a major point of discrepancy between lions and butterflies. Indeed, initially (and very broadly said), economists (the lions) were myopic, considering a city as a point on a line (1D), and hence over simplifying urban realities for the sake of rigorous economic theory. At the same time, geographers (the butterflies), more aware of the crucial role of scale, were