In response to Haila's invitation to further discussion on urban land rent theory, Clark's earlier critique of Ball's reformulation and Haila's misunderstandings of this critique are clarified. Points of agreement and points where disagreement cannot yet be ruled out are specified. It is argued, in opposition to the assumption which underlies Haila's comment, that theoretical progress is not impeded by exploring the history of a concept, and is not served by the creation of ‘new’ theories each day from a tabula rasa.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallM, 1985, “The urban rent question”Environment and Planning A17503–525
2.
BallM, 1987, “Rent and social relations: A reply to Clark”Environment and Planning A19269–272
3.
ClarkE, 1987a, “A critical note on Ball's reformulation of the role of urban land rent”Environment and Planning A19263–267
4.
ClarkE, 1987b, “On Ball's reformulation—a rejoinder”Environment and Planning A191123–1124
5.
ClarkE, 1987cThe Rent Gap and Urban Change: Case Studies in Malmö 1860–1985Chartwell-Bratt, Bromley; Lund University Press, Lund)
6.
ClarkE, 1988, “The rent gap and transformation of the built environment: Case studies in Malmö 1860–1985”Geografiska Annaler70B241–254
7.
ClarkE, 1990, “On the question of an Atlantic gap in gentrification theory” paper presented at Urban Networks International Seminar on European Gentrification, Utrecht; copy available from the author
8.
ClarkEGullbergA, 1990, “The postwar transformation of Stockholm's inner city—long swings, rent gaps and structures of building provision”, forthcoming
9.
HailaA, 1988, “Land as a financial asset: The theory of urban rent as a mirror of economic transformation”Antipode2079–101
10.
HailaA, 1989, “Misguided rhetoric on rent: A comment on Ball and Clark”Environment and Planning A211525–1532
