Critical commentary

Urban Studies
2018, Vol. 55(2) 263–273
Ó Urban Studies Journal Limited 2017
Agglomeration and assemblage: Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Deterritorialising urban theory DOI: 10.1177/0042098017711650
journals.sagepub.com/home/usj

Kim Dovey
Melbourne School of Design, University of Melbourne, Australia

Fujie Rao
University of Melbourne, Australia

Elek Pafka
University of Melbourne, Australia

Abstract
In two recent papers Storper and Scott have sought to counter the rise of assemblage thinking
in urban studies, suggesting it is indeterminate, jargon-ridden and particularist – that it lacks a
critique of power. Against such approaches they propose the ‘nature of cities’ as an ‘urban land
nexus’ driven by the economics of agglomeration. In this paper we respond, largely agreeing
on jargon yet arguing that assemblage is a form of critical urban thinking that holds potential
for a general but open theory of urbanity. We also suggest that many parts of Scott and
Storper’s own work are entirely compatible with assemblage thinking, including concepts such
as urban ‘bundling’ and ‘buzz’. Agglomeration theory explains why cities emerge and grow
where they do but is weak on issues of scale and morphology. Assemblage thinking embodies
capacities to expand urban studies through a better engagement with multi-scale relations,
gearing the economics of agglomeration to the study of urban morphology; understanding cit-
ies in terms of their possible futures as well as actual conditions. We call for more open and
productive interfaces between research disciplines and approaches – a deterritorialisation of
urban theory. The choice is not between agglomeration and assemblage, it is between the sin-
gular and the multiple.

Keywords
agglomeration, assemblage, morphology, multi-scale thinking, urban theory

Received June 2016; accepted April 2017

Corresponding author:
Kim Dovey, Melbourne School of Design, University of
Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.
Email: [email protected]
264 Urban Studies 55(2)

᪈㾱
Storper ઼ Scott
൘ᴰ䘁Ⲵєㇷ䇪᮷ѝቍ䈅Ҷᢩ傣෾ᐲ⹄ウѝࠪ⧠Ⲵ㓴ਸᙍ㔤ˈᤷࠪ䘉⿽ᙍ㔤ᱟн⺞ᇊǃ‫┑ݵ‬㹼
䈍ᒦфᤱ⢩↺䇪Ⲵˈ㕪ѿᕪᴹ࣋ⲴᢩࡔDŽо䘉Ӌᯩᔿ⴨ሩˈԆԜᨀࠪ“෾ᐲⲴᵜ䍘”ᱟа⿽⭡㚊
ਸ㓿⍾傡ࣘⲴ“෾ᐲ൏ൠ‫ޣ‬㌫”DŽ൘ᵜ᮷ѝˈᡁԜᖸབྷ〻ᓖк਼᜿䘀⭘㹼䈍ˈᤷࠪ㓴ਸᱟа⿽ᢩ
ࡔᔿⲴ෾ᐲᙍ㘳ᯩᔿˈާᴹਁኅᲞ䙽㘼ᔰ᭮Ⲵ෾ᐲ⨶䇪ѻ▌࣋DŽᡁԜҏᤷࠪˈScott ઼ Storper
㠚䓛⹄ウⲴ䇨ཊᯩ䶒о㓴ਸᙍ㔤ᱟᆼ‫⴨ޘ‬ᇩⲴˈवᤜ෾ᐲ“᥶㔁”઼“ᘉҡ”ㅹᾲᘥDŽ㚊ਸ⨶䇪䀓
䟺Ҷ෾ᐲѪօ‫ޤ‬䎧઼ਁኅˈն൘ቪᓖ઼ᖒᘱㅹ䰞仈к䀓䟺࣋䖳ᕡDŽ㓴ਸᙍ㔤փ⧠Ҷ䙊䗷ᴤྭൠ
䀓䟺ཊቪᓖ‫ޣ‬㌫㘼ᢙኅ෾ᐲ⹄ウⲴ㜭࣋ˈሶ㚊ਸ㓿⍾о෾ᐲᖒᘱᆖ⹄ウ⴨㔃ਸˈ᤹➗෾ᐲਟ㜭
Ⲵᵚᶕԕ৺ᇎ䱵⣦ߥᶕ⨶䀓෾ᐲDŽᡁԜબ਱н਼⹄ウᆖ、઼ᯩᔿѻ䰤ᴤᔰ᭮ǃᴤᇼᡀ᷌ൠ㔃ਸ
ˈબ਱෾ᐲ⨶䇪᩸ᔳ䰘ᡧѻ㿱DŽ㾱䘹Ⲵнᱟ㚊ਸᡆ㓴ਸˈ㘼ᱟа‫ݳ‬䘈ᱟཊ‫ݳ‬DŽ

‫ޣ‬䭞䇽
㚊ਸǃ㓴ਸǃᖒᘱᆖǃཊቪᓖᙍ㔤ǃ෾ᐲ⨶䇪

Agglomeration is the basic glue that holds the and Storper, 2015: 1115). At the heart of
city together . (Scott and Storper, 2015: 6) such genetic factors we find agglomeration:
. an assemblage is first and foremost what
keeps very heterogeneous elements together . . cities are everywhere characterised by
How do things take on consistency? How do agglomeration involving the gravitational pull
they cohere? (Deleuze, 2007: 17) of people, economic activities, and other relata
into interlocking, high-density, nodal blocks
Agglomeration: v. to gather into a cluster, of land use . (Storper and Scott, 2016: 1116)
mass or ball; n. a mass or collection of things;
an assemblage (Oxford Dictionary, 2016) Gravity here is a metaphor for the economic
forces that counter the friction of distance
and tend towards dense urban agglomera-
Introduction
tions. Since urban activities cannot simply
In two recent papers Storper and Scott have multiply in the same space, ‘they must neces-
sought to counter the rise of assemblage sarily sort themselves into a spatially exten-
thinking in urban critique (Scott and sive lattice or patchwork organized around
Storper, 2015; Storper and Scott, 2016). their common centre of gravity’ (Storper
Among other things they suggest that such and Scott, 2016: 1116). In doing this urban
an approach is superficial, jargon-ridden, agents are driven by a desire to get the bene-
non-empirical and indeterminate; that it suf- fits of urban proximity while avoiding nega-
fers from a fetish for the particular and lacks tive effects. The economic benefits of
a critique of power or agency. In this cri- agglomerating include the capacity to share
tique, assemblage thinking is combined and infrastructure, to match up with collabora-
at times conflated with the closely aligned tors and clients, and to learn about current
actor-network theory as well as the rather ideas and techniques. The negative effects of
different postcolonial theories (Roy, 2011) congestion, crime and so on are then
and planetary urbanism (Brenner and mediated by different forms of governance.
Schmid, 2014). Against such approaches The outcome – the agglomeration, the city –
they posit a set of ‘fundamental common is defined as an ‘urban land nexus’.
genetic factors underlying urban patterns’ While we might quibble about some of
that comprise the ‘nature’ of cities (Scott the language here, we suggest that such
Dovey et al. 265

thinking does not stand against assemblage than the means of urban engagement can
thinking, rather it is largely compatible with inhibit one’s thinking.
it. By relying on selected reading of applica- We first respond to Storper and Scott’s cri-
tions of assemblage approaches, Scott and tiques of assemblage thinking before outlin-
Storper largely misconstrue what it is about, ing a series of ways in which their work can
methodologically and ontologically. We sug- be understood as compatible with assemblage
gest that many of the best parts of their own thinking. Finally, we propose some ways in
work could be understood as examples of which assemblage thinking can enhance the
assemblage thinking. The process of urban quest for an open theory of urbanity that
agglomeration is one of assemblage, and the connects sciences and humanities, objectivity
urban land nexus is the assemblage that and subjectivity. Like the city itself assem-
emerges from it. Key concepts introduced by blage thinking is multi-scalar and multi-
Storper such as the morphogenic process of dimensional; it connects the disciplines of
‘bundling’ and the urban ‘buzz’ of face-to- geography and social theory with practices of
face communication are also consistent with architecture, planning and design, overturn-
assemblage thinking. ing hegemonies of scale and facilitating multi-
Assemblage thinking is primarily devel- scale thinking. It enables us to gear the eco-
oped from the philosophy of Deleuze, partic- nomics of urban agglomeration to the study
ularly his collaboration with Guattari on the of urban morphology and informal urban-
book A Thousand Plateaus (Deleuze and ism. Assemblage thinking offers an account
Guattari, 1987). This is one of the most of the city as a synergy of density, mix and
jargon-ridden works one can imagine; access. It opens up an understanding of the
Deleuze and Guattari share an aversion to way in which a city embodies capacities for
coming to the point, often for good reason change – gearing the study of the actual city
but to the frustration of the reader. to its possible futures. While the larger project
Assemblage thinking is a practice of looking of Storper and Scott’s papers is to argue for a
for relationships more than looking at general theory of cities, we argue that their
things; seeking to understand how synergies exclusion of assemblage thinking runs coun-
and flows work. While Deleuze and Guattari ter to this goal.
made no claim to the status of theory, it has
been developed as theory by DeLanda (2006,
2016) among others and applied in a bur-
Critiques of assemblage thinking
geoning variety of ways in urban studies The critique mounted by Storper and Scott
(Dovey, 2016; McFarlane, 2011; McGuirk ranges across postcolonial thinking, plane-
et al., 2016; Müller, 2015; Rankin, 2011; tary urbanism, actor-network theory and
Sendra, 2015; Simone, 2011; Wood, 2009). It assemblage theory. Within this critique
has been variously identified with ‘relational’ assemblage thinking is partially confused
(Jacobs, 2012), ‘material’ (Rydin, 2014) and with postcolonial thinking. While Deleuzian
‘non-representational’ (Anderson and concepts are often used within postcolonial
Harrison, 2010) turns in social theory. It has critique and many scholars combine the two
a ‘flat ontology’ that opposes the reduction approaches, there are also trenchant postco-
of the particular to the general, of smaller to lonial critiques of Deleuzian thought. While
larger scales. Assemblage is a means of both postcolonial and assemblage theories
engagement with the world more than a for- are anti-essentialist, assemblage thinking is a
mal theoretical discourse. One of its lessons distinctive approach. In its desire to incorpo-
is that a focus on theory as the end rather rate both materiality and representation –
266 Urban Studies 55(2)

objective and subjective, sciences and huma- weapon. Once the point is nailed home then
nities – assemblage thinking is also not so far the tool can disappear along with the jargon;
from the work of thinkers such as Benjamin, theory is the means rather than the end of
Lefebvre, Bourdieu and Giddens as is often assemblage thinking. While many scholars
imagined. use urban research in order to make a theo-
A key argument against assemblage the- retical point (as in this paper), the larger
ory is that the extensive use of jargon and task of assemblage thinking is to use theory
neologism render it incomprehensible and as the means to understand and transform
indeterminate. On this point we largely the city.
agree. The use of an exclusive language plays Storper and Scott (2016: 1132) portray
a key part in insulating different modes of assemblage thinking as ‘a conceptually bar-
thought from each other. Learning the lan- ren search for difference, particularity and
guage is the price one must pay for admis- localism’ where a focus on the particularities
sion to the club; use of a private language is of the city precludes the emergence of a gen-
a micro-practice of power that turns ideas eral theory of cities. This is a misunderstand-
into ideologies and defends them from ing that stems from a desire to see the
attack. At the same time new language can particulars of the city subsumed into a gen-
be required for new ways of thinking. It may eral theory of cities. While assemblage is a
or may not be useful to invent neologisms general theory, it is not a model of the world
like ‘line of flight’, ‘smooth space’ and ‘body within which the particulars can be reduced
without organs’ – the key criterion is to the general. The relations of particular to
whether such jargon can become useful general within assemblage thinking are reci-
beyond the confines of the theory. In becom- procal. The particular is not an instance of
ing difficult to understand, assemblage the general, rather what becomes general
thinking also leaves itself vulnerable to the emerges in part from the interactions of par-
charge that it is indeterminate – that it lacks ticulars. The charge of particularism is an
clarity. Deleuze and Guattari do have an argument for a reduction of the particular to
aversion to determinacy and reductionism the general, of micro-scale to macro-scale, of
that can be frustrating, yet anti-reductionism the street to the city. To portray assemblage
is central to assemblage thinking. From their as a ‘search for difference’ betrays a pre-
perspective philosophy is the invention of sumption that identity precedes difference;
concepts as tools for thinking – assemblage assemblage embodies a ‘flat’ ontology
is a conceptual toolkit (Massumi, 1987: xii). whereby the world is a field of differences
We should not be surprised when a new tool from which identities emerge. Assemblage is
is given a new name and if it turns out to be not a search for particularity but for the gen-
useful then that name will find a common eral within the particular; it resists the hier-
usage. The real test of assemblage thinking archy of identity over difference and of the
lies in the usefulness of new ways of thinking general over the particular (Rydin, 2014).
about cities that it opens up. Jargon needs The charge of particularism is linked to
to be translated as much as possible into an that of ‘naive objectivism’, first levelled at
accessible language. Yet indeterminacy will assemblage thinking by Brenner et al. (2011).
remain since if concepts are tools then it fol- This is the view that the focus on material
lows that any concept can be useful for a particulars leaves us unable to distinguish
limited but indeterminate range of tasks. between significant and insignificant urban
While a hammer is of little use for digging a issues, that the micro-scale materialities of
hole it can be used as a paperweight or a the slum, for instance, do not help us
Dovey et al. 267

understand the context of social marginalisa- thinkers don’t go in for structure, but they
tion (Brenner et al., 2011: 234). Again the see agency everywhere. In this sense, assem-
complaint here is with the ontology of blage has decided one of the basic problems
assemblage thinking which is ‘flat’ in the in social science firmly on the side of agency’.
sense that it does not recognise a transcen- Deleuze and Guattari are indeed firmly on
dent order to which the immanent world can the side of the emancipatory potential of rhi-
be reduced. Assemblage thinking asks that zomic agency. However, there is a great deal
we abandon the hegemony of scale – the pre- of what might be understood as structure
sumption that the global subsumes the local. within assemblage thinking where we find a
The charge of particularism often hits the set of resonating twofold concepts – rhi-
mark by selecting particular examples of zome/tree, smooth/striated, becoming/being,
assemblage research where the trivial is por- difference/identity. The twofold is not binary
trayed as significant with little reason; how- and the tree-like structure does not play a
ever this is not characteristic of good reductive role – assemblage focuses attention
assemblage thinking. on the ways power is produced rather than
A key component of Storper and Scott’s simply held. A flat ontology does not means
critique is that assemblage thinking lacks cri- one does not recognise nor take hierarchy
ticality, that it stands outside critiques of seriously, rather it is to refuse a legitimation
social justice, empowerment, oppression and of hierarchy based on transcendent ideals
emancipation. They suggest that: such as the hegemony of scale.
One of the more common complaints
One searches in vain in assemblage theory and about assemblage thinking is that it attri-
urban research based on it to know what butes agency to the non-human world – to
larger difference assemblages make, which materials, things and spaces (Storper and
assemblages are important and which are
Scott, 2016: 1127). It is axiomatic to assem-
insignificant and fleeting, which are empower-
ing and which are disempowering, and what
blage theory that power is distributed and
kinds of policy interventions are most likely to embodied in material spatial arrangements.
bring about desired forms of social change. This is not a form of environmental deter-
(Storper and Scott, 2016: 1128) minism nor a displacement of human
agency; it is a recognition that power is pro-
Assemblage is a theory of power with its duced and practiced through the materiality
roots in the Foucaultian critique of power as and spatiality of the city. Whether we call
embodied in micropractices, as distributed this action of technologies, things, buildings
and capillary rather than simply held. The and places on our lives a form of ‘agency’ is
Foucaultian apparatus of the panopticon is a moot point. The ‘agency of materials’ con-
a key source and model of an assemblage cept is primarily identified with actor-
(Deleuze and Parnet, 2007), yet Deleuze and network theory and the provocative concept
Guattari exploit this revolution in thinking of the ‘actant’ (Latour, 2005). While there
about power for its emancipatory potential are many overlaps of actor-network theory
as well as a critique of discipline. and assemblage, they cannot be conflated. A
Storper and Scott (2016: 1127) criticise key point is that power is capillary and is
the focus of assemblage theory on networks not simply held by human agents. Tonkiss
of ‘rhizomatic entanglements without under- (2011: 587) puts it well when she complains:
lying processes of structuration’. Likewise ‘Where power is capillary, it seems, the buck
Tonkiss (2011: 584) argues: ‘Assemblage never stops’. This is of course a real problem
268 Urban Studies 55(2)

– power is slippery and hidden – but it is not urban density embodies its own attraction –
a problem of assemblage thinking that it that people, buildings and activities are
exposes this to be the case. attracted to existing concentrations. Glue
suggests a stickiness that prevents dispersal
once they are settled in place. Both are
Agglomeration as assemblage potentially useful metaphors. Urban density
Here we move from considering Storper and embodies a force somewhat like gravity
Scott’s critique of assemblage thinking to where the greater the mass the greater the
the suggestion that their work can be seen as attraction, and once an urban morphology
compatible with such thinking. Within their becomes settled and productive then it
critique they argue that ‘Assemblage theory becomes ‘sticky’ and difficult to detach from
radically privileges the activity of assemblage (Markusen, 1996).
itself’ (Storper and Scott, 2016: 1126) – yet If there is a parallel concept to glue and
they radically privilege the activity of gravity within assemblage thinking, it might
agglomeration. So how different are pro- be found in ‘desire’. Like gravity, desire is a
cesses of assemblage and agglomeration? force of attraction between parts of an
For Storper and Scott urban agglomeration assemblage that is immanent or embodied in
is the force of attraction, likened to a gravi- the materiality world. Desires are multiple,
tational pull, that creates cities. The result of intersecting and often contradictory. The
such agglomerative process is the ‘urban suburb emerges from desires to have daily
land nexus’ which is largely a synonym for access to the city without living in it. The
‘city’: ‘all cities throughout history are based desire for a ‘room with a view’ produces
on this fundamental process of agglomera- agglomerations of capital investment in par-
tion’ (Storper and Scott, 2016: 1116). ticular urban morphologies (tall buildings)
Agglomeration is a fundamentally economic and topographies (waterfronts). Such desires
process where concentration occurs because – for access to jobs, views, status, sociality,
of the friction of distance. The advantages profit and so on – are at once productive of
of clustering are portrayed as ‘sharing’ (the the city and produced by it. Desire is neither
cost of infrastructure), ‘matching’ (the ease subjective nor objective; it cannot be simply
of making new contacts) and ‘learning’ located in the view or those who desire it,
(from current ideas and techniques). rather it is a flow or relation. This is not to
We have no quarrel with the premise that suggest a different kind of reductionism to
economic production and exchange is the ‘flows of desire’, only that agglomeration
raison d’être for cities (Scott and Storper, can be understood as a multiplicity of attrac-
2015: 6). This does not mean cities can be tions beyond the useful metaphors of glue
reduced to economics; it explains the why and gravity.
and where of cities but it does not show how One of Storper’s many contributions to
cities tick. The concept of the ‘urban land urban studies has been to show the ways
nexus’ – the outcome of the agglomerative urban land markets agglomerate into ‘bun-
process – is seen as the ‘essential fabric of dles’ of amenity (Storper and Manville,
intra-urban space’ (Scott and Storper, 2015: 2006). At one scale a hotel chain offers a
8). It defines the city in terms of a cluster of bundle of housing, food, recreation, shop-
interconnections on land. Two key meta- ping and office facilities integrated under
phors used by Storper and Scott to explain conditions of security and design quality. A
the underlying forces of agglomeration are neighbourhood also offers a bundle of ame-
‘gravity’ and ‘glue’. Gravity suggests that nities – housing, recreation, security, views,
Dovey et al. 269

walkability, shopping, schools, access and order to control difference also diminish
sociality. Urban governance is also a bundle intensity.
of different levels and jurisdictions of power This lack of attention to streetlife inten-
and control (Storper, 2014). Bundling can be sity is curious because Storper has also been
understood as a land-use mix, a mix of ame- at the forefront of re-thinking the economic
nities, or a bundle of governance structures role of face-to-face contact in the urban con-
and regulations. Any urban location embo- text (Storper and Venables, 2004). The ques-
dies a bundle of amenities and practices that tion of why cities are thriving in a context of
can only be exchanged as a bundle – the burgeoning telecommunications is answered
things we desire cannot be disaggregated through an affirmation of the economic
from those we might wish to avoid such as importance of face-to-face encounter. Some
crime and congestion. This focus on bund- parts of some cities produce the urban ‘buzz’
ling rather than things in themselves is an of an intensive learning environment with an
important form of relational thinking, how- economic value that cannot be replaced by
ever, Storper is curiously uncritical when it telecommunications. The formation of trust
comes to the particularities of urban bun- in economic partnerships requires face-to-
dles. What we might call ‘neoliberal bund- face contact. This argument is a continua-
ling’ operates to meet the market for a tion of Marshall’s (1890) insight that cities
purified city in which the negatives have been produce ‘something in the air’ with an eco-
largely expunged; in doing so it diminishes nomic value beyond simply eliminating the
the very qualities of urbanity that are funda- friction of distance, forms of tacit knowledge
mental to its productivity – the random that require face-to-face communication.
encounter with difference. A bundle is by This idea of ‘buzz’ has many synonyms and
definition a juxtaposition of differences, yet cousins: ‘atmosphere’, ‘vitality’, ‘character’,
controlled bundles eliminate difference to ‘sense of place’ are among them, but the
varying degrees. The gated enclaves, shop- generic term we might use here is ‘urbanity’
ping malls, hotels and so on involve the pro- or urban ‘intensity’. This is an experiential
duction of quasi-public bundles with a phenomenon and while we might describe it
relatively high level of closure in both spatial in phenomenological terms we will simply be
and representation terms – lacking the urban describing the result. The buzz of urban
intensity of everyday streetlife. When the dis- intensity is at once a product of the city – an
benefits of public life are removed so is the attraction that is consumed – but also a
urbanity. A parallel loss of intensity applies form of production. Here we intersect with
in the car-based city where access networks Lefebvre (1991) and his insights that urban
become accumulations of private cars rather space is at once a product and a form of
than the agglomeration of crowds. Storper production; that space is always at once per-
and Manville (2006) suggest that the bundle ceived, conceived and lived. The value of
of urban amenities accessible within 30 min- face-to-face contact has to do with the loose
utes in central Manhattan is similar to that ties of the urban community rather than the
in Los Angeles. Yet such a claim ignores the bonded social capital of the closed commu-
productive intensity of face-to-face encoun- nity. It is based not in the reassuring wave
ter on the one hand and the costs of parking of the well-recognised neighbour but in the
on the other. Urban intensity is based in dif- learning that comes from the encounter with
ference and is highly reliant on public stree- difference – new ideas, new partners, new
tlife. Urban bundles that are produced in possibilities. Yet Storper’s account of the
270 Urban Studies 55(2)

face-to-face economy is strangely aspatial, understanding of both urban morphologies

as if land ownership, urban design and spa- and economies. She first argued that urban
tial segmentarity were somehow neutral to morphology at street and neighbourhood
the economics of face-to-face encounter. It is scales are crucial to the creativity and pro-
uncritical of the privatisation and purifica- ductivity of cities; and later that innovation
tion of the city where capital markets kill the and import replacement were more crucial
very forms of urbanity that attract it in the than geography or agriculture for metropoli-
first place. tan growth. While Jacobs contributed major
insights into how cities work at different
scales, she rarely connected these scales and
Scale and morphology multi-scalar thinking remains a key chal-
It is axiomatic to agglomeration thinking lenge. With a nod to Jacobs we suggest such
that agglomeration is much more than a multi-scalar nexus might be construed as
aggregation; the urban land nexus is a com- the ‘urban DMA’ – a conjunction of density,
plex mix of relations between different ingre- mix and access (Dovey, 2016). Density is the
dients. Cities are not ‘cogs designed to fit concentrations of people, practices and
into the bigger administrative machine of buildings that have the effect of shrinking
transnational enterprises’ (Storper, 1997: 9). distances. Mix as the set of co-functioning
Yet agglomeration thinking retains the pre- synergies between people, practices and
sumption that the parts of cities are sub- places; at once a social, functional and for-
sumed by the whole: that the larger scale mal mix – a mix of mixes. Access as the
trumps the smaller. While Duranton and capacity of infrastructure networks to facili-
Storper (2006: 6) suggest that ‘the micro- tate flows at every scale – between buildings,
foundations of urban morphology’ should neighbourhoods and cities. To understand
be explored more, the gaze of geographers this nexus means understanding the city as a
and economists tends to remain at the larger three-dimensional and multi-scalar morphol-
scale. The urban land nexus is a concept that ogy – abandoning phrases such as ‘land use’
operates primarily at metropolitan scale with that are a legacy of modernist zoning into
urban districts and neighbourhoods as sub- singular functions. This nexus of density,
sets that are reduced to the larger scale: ‘just mix and access does not determine urban
as neighbourhoods, slums, industrial quar- outcomes any more than human DNA deter-
ters, etc., are distinctive and idiosyncratic mines who we are, but without them it is not
socio-spatial articulations (albeit within the a city.
urban land nexus), so the urban land nexus Storper and Scott (2016: 1117) make the
itself is a distinctive socio-spatial articulation point that we need to discriminate between
(within wider global or planetary space)’ issues that are of and in cities – between
(Storper and Scott, 2016: 1130). Note that those that are necessary to understanding
the smaller scale ‘socio-spatial articulations’ how cities work and those that just happen
are not granted the status of an urban land to be manifest in an urban setting.
nexus. The hegemony of macro-scale that so Agglomeration is a characteristic of cities
often prevails in both economic and geo- while poverty is an issue that, while firmly
graphic thinking is at odds with the flat embedded in cities, has sources at a broader
ontology of assemblage thinking. scale. This important distinction suggests
This issue can be usefully viewed through that the particular morphologies that are
the lens of the work of Jacobs (1961, 1969), characteristic of cities are taken seriously.
which involved key breakthroughs in the Storper and Scott (2016: 1132) suggest that
Dovey et al. 271

assemblage approaches: ‘offer few or no at the centre of such a general theory of cit-
insights as to the genetics of indurated spa- ies. It can be useful, however, in establishing
tial and institutional arrangements’. Such an the importance of all theories to remain
understanding, however, is not helped by an open to alliances with each other.
ontology that privileges larger-scale think- The most potent criticism of assemblage
ing. One example here lies in the challenge thinking is the unnecessary jargon that leads
of engaging with urban informality. For to a mix of misunderstanding and incompre-
Storper and Scott (2016) informal settle- hension. We cannot expect to rid the field of
ments of the Global South are simply listed jargon but any movement towards a general
(as ‘slums’) alongside other neighbourhoods theory of urbanity needs a genuinely shared
as constituent parts of any city. This is a language for debate. Theories are forms of
case of not distinguishing between issues territory where intellectual capital is consoli-
that are in and of the city – informality is a dated and protected along with the reputa-
mode of urban production with morpho- tions of those who contribute or sign up.
genic processes different from those of the This is why boundaries between theories are
formal city, a different urban DMA. This is constructed, partly through jargon but also
not to suggest that urban informality is not through more direct discourses of exclusion
present in the Global North, only that our – recognise this concept and not that one;
understanding of such cities is utterly inade- invite or employ this and not that scholar;
quate for engagement with the many dimen- ask these and not those questions. But what
sions of informal urbanism – slipperiness, if a theory suggests that multiplicitous think-
micro-spatial incrementalism, camouflage ing is precisely what is required in order to
and rhizomic adaptation (Dovey, 2012). better understand cities? Assemblage is such
a theory of multiplicity, of exploring the
spaces between territories as a primary
Towards an open theory of
means of producing new ideas. With a nod
urbanity to some other major relational thinkers in
The larger project of Storper and Scott’s urban studies such as Massey’s (1994) ‘open
papers is to argue for a general theory of cit- sense of place’ and Sennett’s (2007) concept
ies and we would not contest such a goal so of the ‘open city’, we might term this an
long as it is not an excuse to exclude new open theory of urbanity.
ways of thinking. In our view such a body Assemblage is a philosophy where the
of theory is emerging out of a mix of process of becoming takes priority over any
approaches including structuration, assem- stabilised sense of being, where the
blage, agglomeration, complex adaptive sys- Heideggerian ‘being-in-the-world’ is replaced
tems, postcolonial and marxist critique. by a Deleuzian ‘becoming-in-the-world’
Assemblage is not a theory where all the (Dovey, 2010: 6). It enables an understand-
parts fall into line with strict orthodoxy but ing of the city in terms of both actual and
rather a loose set of alliances between differ- possible worlds – the city as an assemblage
ent modes of thought. This theoretical multi- of people, places and practices; at once a set
plicity is necessary in urban studies because of actual arrangements and a range of capa-
the city is such a multiplicitous phenomenon cities for what it might become. This opens
that requires different modes of thought in up a ‘space of possibility’ (DeLanda, 2016) –
order to understand the many different ways a capacity to become transformed, designed
in which it operates. There is no sense in and planned in a range of different ways.
which we seek to place assemblage thinking Urban studies can become more closely
272 Urban Studies 55(2)

geared to the creative and critical practices an assemblage approach, but for a deterri-
of architecture, urban design and the arts. torialisation of urban studies – more open
Design research emerges as a field of and productive interfaces between disci-
research that is conducted through design; plines and approaches. Assemblage is not a
boundaries between research and practice framework into which agglomeration fits,
erode as we experiment on the real city as it is a mode of thinking through which a
the laboratory of urban studies (Thrift, more open theory of urbanity becomes
2011). possible.
Assemblage thinking is grounded in the
precept that difference precedes identity; Funding
that identities of places, people and institu- This research received no specific grant from any
tions emerge from differences. The encoun- funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-
ter with difference is at the heart of how for-profit sectors.
cities work as productive learning assem-
blages. Thus an assemblage approach seeks
to connect different categories of thought. It References
connects different scales enabling alliances Anderson B and Harrison P (eds) (2010) Taking-
between different built environment disci- Place. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
plines. It flattens hierarchies of scale and Brenner N and Schmid C (2014) The ‘urban age’
enables us to understand the ways micro- in question. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 38(3): 731–755.
and meso-scale urban morphologies are
Brenner N, Madden DJ and Wachsmuth D
geared to the economics of agglomeration. (2011) Assemblage urbanism and the chal-
Assemblage thinking cuts across divisions lenges of critical urban theory. City 15(2):
between formal and informal urbanism, 225–240.
between top-down policy and everyday life, DeLanda M (2006) A New Philosophy of Society.
opening up understandings of incremental London: Continuum.
adaptation and emergence. Finally assem- DeLanda M (2016) Assemblage Theory. Edin-
blage is productive of alliances between the burgh: Edinburgh University Press.
sciences, humanities and arts together with Deleuze G (2007) Two Regimes of Madness. Lon-
their dominant modes of discourse – num- don: MIT Press.
Deleuze G and Guattari F (1987) A Thousand
bers, words and images, respectively. The
Plateaus. Minneapolis, MN: University of
monopoly held for so long by numbers and Minnesota Press.
words is eroded as maps and diagrams Deleuze G and Parnet C (2007) Dialogues II. New
become potent forms of spatial knowledge York: Columbia University Press.
(Dovey and Pafka, 2016). New alliances can Dovey K (2010) Becoming Places: Urbanism/Archi-
cut across divisions between spatiality and tecture/Identity/Power. London: Routledge.
sociality; between materiality and meaning. Dovey K (2012) Informal settlement and complex
It is easy to call this ‘interdisciplinary’ yet adaptive assemblage. International Develop-
many theoretical territories are not ‘disci- ment Planning Review 34(3): 371–390.
plines’ in the strict sense and assemblage Dovey K (2016) Urban Design Thinking. London:
Bloomsbury.
thinking is relatively undisciplined. In the
Dovey K and Pafka E (2016) The science of urban
end the choice is not between agglomeration design? Urban Design International 21(1):
and assemblage, nor between different 1–10.
modes of thought, so much as between the Duranton G and Storper M (2006) Agglomera-
singular and the multiple. What is most tion and growth. Journal of Economic Geogra-
needed is not for more scholars to sign up to phy 6(1): 1–7.
Dovey et al. 273

Jacobs J (1961) The Death and Life of Great Rydin Y (2014) The challenges of the ‘material
American Cities. New York: Random House. turn’ for planning studies. Planning Theory
Jacobs J (1969) The Economy of Cities. New and Practice 15(4): 590–595.
York: Random House. Scott AJ and Storper M (2015) The nature of cit-
Jacobs JM (2012) Urban geographies I. Progress ies: The scope and limits of urban theory.
in Human Geography 36(3): 412–422. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Latour B (2005) Reassembling the Social. Oxford Research 39(1): 1–15.
& New York: Oxford University Press. Sendra P (2015) Rethinking urban public space.
Lefebvre H (1991) The Production of Space. City 19(6): 820–836.
Oxford: Blackwell. Sennett R (2007) The open city. In: Burdett R
McFarlane C (2011) The city as assemblage. Envi- and Sudjic D (eds) The Endless City. London:
ronment and Planning D 29(4): 649–671. Phaidon, pp. 290–298.
McGuirk PM, Mee KJ and Ruming KJ (2016) Simone A (2011) The surfacing of urban life. City
Assembling urban regeneration? Geography 15(3–4): 355–364.
Compass 10(3): 128–141. Storper M (1997) The city. The Service Industries
Markusen A (1996) Sticky places in slippery Journal 17(1): 1–27.
space. Economic Geography 72(3): 293–313. Storper M (2014) Governing the large metropolis.
Marshall A (1890) Principles of Economics. Lon- Territory, Politics, Governance 2(2): 115–134.
don: Mac-Millan. Storper M and Manville M (2006) Behaviour,
Massey D (1994) Space, Place and Gender. Cam- preferences and cities. Urban Studies 43(8):
bridge: Polity Press. 1247–1274.
Massumi B (1987) Translator’s introduction. In: Storper M and Scott AJ (2016) Current debates
Deleuze G and Guattari F (eds) A Thousand in urban theory: A critical assessment. Urban
Plateaus. London: Athlone, pp. ix–xv. Studies 53(6): 1114–1136.
Müller M (2015) Assemblages and actor-net- Storper M and Venables AJ (2004) Buzz. Journal
works. Geography Compass 9(1): 27–41. of Economic Geography 4(4): 351–370.
Oxford Dictionary (2016) Available at: http:// Thrift N (2011) Lifeworld Inc and what to do
www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/eng- about it. Environment and Planning D 29(1):
lish/agglomeration (accessed 27 June 2016). 5–26.
Rankin KN (2011) Assemblage and the politics of Tonkiss F (2011) Template urbanism. City 15(5):
thick description. City 15(5): 563–569. 584–588.
Roy A (2011) Slumdog cities. International Journal Wood S (2009) Desiring Docklands. Planning
of Urban and Regional Research 35(2): 223–238. Theory 8(2): 191–216.