Abstract:
Notions of the ‘central’ – as a dense core – have dominated the sense that urbanisation is replete with the
possibilities of accessibility, concentration, efficiency, and productive power. The city was thought to culminate
in a centre, an almost mystical gravitational pull that would pull materials and bodies into its regard. If there were
any doubt as to the existence of such an overarching organizational force, its location was marked with excess –
as the physical dimension of the built environment and valuations of all kinds would inflate. In some respects the
affirmation of a centre as far as cities are concerned would prove somewhat counter-intuitive to urbanization
processes seemingly more inclined to disperse, multiply and fragment rather than gather up. Distinctions
between a clearly discernible centre and periphery, and other such gradations, historically have proven
ambiguous as indicators of a capacity to make things happen. Centres have always seemed unduly aided by
various administrative sleights of hand, things that would seem to slow down rather than quicken urbanized
relations (Pacione 2009; Parker 2006; Soja 2000).
