This paper responds to Richard G Smith's review of ordinary city writing which he describes as ‘a trap for progressive international urbanism’. I focus on questioning how and why Smith develops his ‘critique of a critique’. More specifically, I consider the ways that Smith defines the boundaries of both the ordinary cities literature and the world/global cities writing that he pits against each other. Discussing genealogy and influence I offer a more optimistic but not uncritical view of role of ordinary city thinking in advancing critical urbanism.