This polemical article uses Los Angeles as a template to challenge existing theoretical and empirical research traditions in the study of urban politics. The precepts of the “Los Angeles School” exemplify the shift from a modernist to a postmodern urbanism in which altered geographies are redefining the meaning and practice of urban politics. Los Angeles challenges an urban political scholarship that is overly focused on empirical analysis at the expense of theory, too constrained by conventional categories, and divorced from adjacent disciplines with much to contribute to the understanding of contemporary politics, including urban political economy.
Abu-Lughod, J.1999. New York, Chicago, Los Angeles: America's global cities. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
2.
Brenner, N.2004. New state spaces. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press.
3.
Burgess, E.W.1925. The growth of the city: an introduction to a research project. In The City, edited by R. Park, E. W. Burgess, and R. D. McKenzie, 47-62. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
4.
Christaller, W.1966. Central places in southern Germany. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
Dear, M.2000. The postmodern urban condition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
6.
Dear, M., ed. 2002. From Chicago to LA: Making sense of urban theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dear, M., A. Burridge, P. Marolt, J. Peters, and M. Seymour.Forthcoming. Critical responses to the Los Angeles School of Urbanism. Urban Geography.
9.
Dear, M., and S. Flusty.1998. Postmodern urbanism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers88 (1): 50-72.
10.
Dear, M.,H. E. Schockman , and G. Hise, eds. 1996. Rethinking Los Angeles. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Erie, S.P.2004. Globalizing L.A.: Trade, infrastructure and regional development . Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press .
12.
Flusty, S.2004. De-Coca-Colonization: Making the globe from the inside out. New York: Routledge.
13.
Glasze, G.,C. Webster, and K. Frantz, eds. 2006. Private cities: Global and local perspectives. New York : Routledge.
14.
Greene, R.P.2006. Strong downtowns and high amenity zones as defining features of the 21st century metropolis: The case of Chicago. In Chicago's geographies: Metropolis for the 21st century, edited by R. P. Greene, M. J. Bouman, and D. Grammenos, 50-74. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers.
15.
Halle, D., ed. 2003, New York and Los Angeles: Politics, society, and culture. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
16.
Keil, R.1998. Los Angeles: Globalization, urbanization and social struggles . New York: John Wiley.
17.
Losch, A.1967. The economics of location. New York : John Wiley.
18.
McKenzie, E.2005. Constructing the Pomerium in Las Vegas. Housing Studies20 (2): 187-203.
19.
Moehring, E.P.1995. Resort City in the Sunbelt: Las Vegas, 1930-1970. Reno: Univ. of Nevada Press.
20.
Mouffe, C.2005. On the political. London: Verso.
21.
Scott, A.J.2000. The cultural economy of cities. London : Sage.
22.
Scott, A. J., and E. W. Soja, eds. 1996. The city: Los Angeles and urban theory at the end of the twentieth century. Berkeley : Univ. of California Press.
Southern California Studies Center.2001. Sprawl hits the wall. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
26.
von Thunen, J.H.1966. The isolated state. New York: Pergamon.
27.
Waldinger, R., and M. Bozorgmehr , eds. 1996. Ethnic Los Angeles. New York: Russell Sage.
28.
Wolch, J.,M. Pastor , and P. Dreier, eds. 2004. Up against the sprawl: Public policy in the making of Southern California. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
