why are urban regions contiguous

It's very unfortunate but it sometimes feel the academic world remains ages behind. At a conference last week, I was struck by Sir Peter Hall's "functional urban regions" (FURs). Although Castell's 'space of flows', Saksien's 'global cities' and Taylors' 'world city network' had its share of attention during his speech, these theories are not included in evaluating FURs. Why are FURs contiguous ? Aren't there as many commuters between London and Brussels as London and the South East ? How about NY-LON ? The answer appears rather simple and disapointing : lack of data on air / rail flows, hence on long distance business commuting. It's time academics nd the transport industry share knowledge so we can truly be in a space of flows.

urban and rural

Geographers, spatial economists and political philosphers have opposed urban (the city) and rural (the country) for centuries. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Tonnies, Max Weber, Georg Simmel have all contributed to the rural-urban debate, often associated with the center / perihpery contrast.

In the current world network economy, where 'spaces of flows' have replaced 'spaces of places' (Castells), the urban/rural opposition is outdated. Cities are processes, evaluated by their relations with others, in a space of flows. These incoming and outgoing flows (physcial and virtual) make up the city. The country however remains a place, where local production feeds its inhabitants who remain in their designated territories.

We've created a world where urban is a different referential than rural.