Editorial: "It's not for us..."?

City

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 1-4

  Catterall, Bob ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874338541     PISSN: 13604813     EISSN: 14703629     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13604813.2013.772382     Document Type: Editorial

References (6)

1. My thanks to Paul Watt who provided extra information for this passage (email, 28 Jan, 2013).
2. Charlotte Higgins, 'London Olympics: Orbit towers over debate on purpose of public art', The Guardian, 11 May, 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/ artanddesign/2012/may/11/london-olympics- orbit-anish-kapoor
3. There is a further context for this in the journal of an earlier debate between Tom Slater(13.4 and 14.1- 2), on the one hand, and Chris Hamnett(13.4 and 14.1-2), on the other, on the analysis of gentrification in London, with a concluding comment by Peter Marcuse. The Davidson and Wyly paper in this issue is the beginning of a further stage in the discussion with forthcoming pieces by Chris Hamnett and Tim Butler (17.2) and by Davidson and Wyly.
4. The photograph is on the cover, referred to in the editorial, and returned in the endpiece (see the discussion on pp. 618-619 of16.5) to its original context in Patrich Keiller's Robinson in Ruins.
5. Whybrow's account is included in the final chapter on the current state of some Californain cities in Michael Lewis' Boomerang: the Biggest Bust', Penguin: London, 2012. It is a useful supplement (neither academically nor necessarily politically correct) to the section on When the lights go out; cities under austerity rule' in Jamie Peck's 'Austerity Urbanism: American cities under extreme economy (!6.6, pp. 635-647).
6. nd October, 2012.