This commentary provides a sympathetic critique to Luger and Schwartz's contention that the concept of ‘post-industrial’ lacks continued utility in a world of urban (and regional) change. Drawing on the authors’ use of stigma and narrative, I argue the post-industrial concept remains relevant, though scholars must attend to who is mobilizing the concept, and to what ends.
DeitrickSGlassMR (2022) Confronting the Pittsburgh narrative: Renaissance, renewal, and the tension of authenticity. In: ColeAHealyAMorel JournelC (eds) Constructing Narratives for City Governance: Transnational Perspectives on Urban Narratives. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Press, 17–30.
2.
GlassMR (2018) Understanding the 24-hour city: Engagement, positionality, and the co-production of knowledge. The Professional Geographer70(2): 327–332.
3.
LuboveR (1996) Twentieth-Century Pittsburgh, Volume One: Government, Business, and Environmental Change. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
4.
MallachA (2018) The Divided City: Poverty & Prosperity in Urban America. Washington, DC: Island Press.
5.
WalkerR (1995) Regulation and flexible specialization as theories of capitalist development: Challengers to Marx and Schumpeter? In: LiggettHPerryD (eds) Spatial Practices: Critical Explorations in Social/Spatial Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 167–208.
