This essay is a brief reply to Cochrane (2006b). It reiterates the ways in which the
existing Anglo-American consensus within urban studies allows only a narrow reading
of the possible futures of European cities.
Barry,A.
(2004) ‘Whitehead and Sociology’,
accessed on 1 June 2006 at: [http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/csisp/papers/barry_whitehead_sociology.pdf]
2.
Cochrane,A.
(2006a)
‘Making up Meanings in a Capital City: Power, Memory and
Monuments in Berlin’
, European Urban and Regional Studies13 (1):
5–24
.
3.
Cochrane,A.
(2006b)
‘(Anglo)phoning Home from Berlin: a Response to Alan Latham’
,European Urban and Regional Studies13 (4):
371–376
4.
Cochrane,A.
and
Jonas,A.
(1999)
‘Re-imagining Berlin: World City, National Capital or Ordinary Place?’
, European Urban and Regional Studies6 (2):
145–164
.
5.
Cochrane,A.
and
Passmore,A.
(2001)
‘Building a National Capital in an Age of Globalization: the Case
of Berlin’
, Area33 (4):
341–352
.
6.
Latham,A.
(2003)
‘Urbanity, Lifestyle and Making Sense of the New Urban Cultural
Economy: Notes from Auckland, New Zealand’
,Urban Studies40 (9):
1699–1724
.
Latham,A.
(2006)
‘Anglophone Urban Studies and the European City: Some Comments on
Interpreting Berlin’
, European Urban and Regional Studies13 (1):
88–92
.
9.
Oswald, P.
(2000) Berlin_Stadt ohne Form: Strategien einer anderen
Architektur.
München: Prestel Verlag
.
10.
Wahjudi, C.
(1999) Metroloops: Berliner Kulturentwürfe.
Berlin: Ullstein
.
11.
Weszkalnys, G. (2004) ‘Alexanderplatz: an Ethnographic Study of
Place and Planning in Contemporary Berlin’, PhD Thesis, University of
Cambridge, UK.
12.
Weszkalnys, G.
(2005)
‘A Robust Square: Planning,Youth Work, and the Making of Public
Space in Contemporary Berlin’
, paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American
Anthropological Association
(May),Washington, DC. Correspondence to:
