The editors argue that ‘the present study shows how, at this moment, the formal and the informal have become not only inseparable and interdependent but also indefinable’ (p. 6). Not unreasonably, they do not like the formal/informal dichotomy because it is too simplistic. Instead they claim that ‘this book provides a thorough review of the work that is currently being carried out by scholars, practitioners and governmental institutions, in and outside Latin America, on the question of informal cities’ (back cover).

It is perfectly reasonable to criticise existing current theoretical understanding. What is much less reasonable is to do so without a proper summary of the relevant literature. This, I believe, constitutes the main weakness of this book. Some of the authors have simplified current thinking in order to demonstrate that it is wrong. Others, to judge from their abbreviated bibliographies, do not even know what other investigators are currently thinking! Thus they do not realise that most researchers in anthropology, sociology, geography and urban studies long ago rejected the simple formal/informal dichotomy, recognised the links between the two, and declared their dislike of the stereotypes that were often associated with the term ‘informal’. It is unacceptable that the work of a whole range of the best academics and thinkers on the ‘informal city’ is missing from this book.

The book is subtitled Critical Perspectives from Latin America. That claim is valid in so far as the majority of the contributors to the volume (13 out of 18) were born in Latin America. However, only half actually live there and some have lived outside the region for generations. What is more troubling is that too many of the authors seem to have read so little of the regional literature; for example, the burgeoning Latin American sociological literature is generally ignored. Nor do the authors do much of a job with respect to the large literature on this area produced by Latin Americanists. To be frank, too many of the bibliographies are feeble: they are both thin and outdated. Almost nothing written after 2005 is mentioned and, perhaps worse, several of the chapters struggle to note much published before 2000. Surely the editors should have insisted on more complete referencing?

So what alternatives does this group of authors with a predominantly architectural background suggest to replace the formal/informal dichotomy? Unfortunately, most of the suggestions tend to recommend new dichotomies: Lefebvre's antagonistic ‘abstract’ and ‘social’ space; Bhabha's ‘pedagogical’ and ‘performative’ temporalities; Deleuze and Guattari's ‘smooth’ and ‘striated’ space; and Mehrotra's ‘kinetic’ and ‘static’ cities. To be frank, I struggle even to understand what some of those terms actually mean. While the formal/informal typology is very often less than helpful, the basic distinction that is drawn is at least comprehensible. Where it falls down, of course, is that most urban activities fall into both categories. ‘Formal’ and ‘informal’ are best thought of as part of a continuum; a few activities are wholly formal, a few wholly informal, but most homes and households are some combination of both. Self-help housing is sometimes completely illegal, unplanned and flimsy; sometimes it has several floors, is fully serviced, and the owners hold the title deeds. Most self-help shelter falls somewhere in between. Dichotomies, while always very popular because of their simplicity, are rarely helpful to understanding.

The book is at its strongest when some of the architects get down to basics and tell us about specific projects in which they have been involved. The vertical gym and the prefab modular stairs devised in Caracas, the discussion of ‘informal’ activity in the centre of Havana, and different forms of vertical circulation (from ramps and stairways to a funicular) in Rio de Janeiro are potentially interesting issues. The plea for more low-cost rental accommodation in central areas is welcome, even if the example shows that in Santiago this has proved to be a relatively expensive approach.

The book is at its weakest when the authors attempt to generalise. Too many chapters contain somewhat debatable truths: for example, there has been a ‘worldwide rise of the informal city’ (p. 123), and ‘Brazil continues to lead the world as the country with the largest difference between the income of the rich minority and the poor majority’ (p. 174). There are also too many assertions that the world has become a worse place over the last couple of decades, the result of globalisation and ‘neoliberalism’. Clearly better and more equitable policies should have been introduced that might have helped the poor, but despite this policy failure most people in Latin America and even in the world at large now live longer lives, are more literate and have access to more consumer durables, including televisions and mobile phones, than ever before. Nor, in Latin America, is there is any real evidence that the incidence of urban poverty has risen, and even the absolute number of poor urban dwellers has fallen, albeit not by that much. In short, too many authors in this book have not done their homework.

Occasionally, too, the value of certain chapters is undermined by a lack of specificity and/or evidence. The centres of São Paulo and Santiago are never properly identified, even though a clear definition is crucial to the arguments of the authors; surely a map or two would have been an easy way of resolving that problem? Similarly, does Caracas have ‘the largest, densest barrios relative to its size of any city of Latin America’ (p. 119)? And, in evaluating Lula's contribution to poverty in Brazil, does it help to comment that between 1999 and 2001 the population of the favelas increased by 150 per cent, when Lula did not come to power until 2003? Also, ‘in the last couple of decades, illegal occupation by squatters in some metropolitan areas [of Brazil] has increased by 223 per cent’ (p. 45) seems a somewhat bizarre combination of the rather vague and the highly specific.

Similarly, too many authors rely on assertion rather than supporting their arguments with real evidence. For example, ‘while poor people in centres live under constant threat of being expelled as a consequence of urban renewal intervention …experience shows how poor people in the periphery always tend to progress, over time, toward more secure tenure and better services’ (p. 97). This may be true in many Latin American cities, but it is not true everywhere, and certainly not in most of urban Africa or in the Indian subcontinent. Nor does the question ‘How, we should ask, did a revolutionary scheme like Le Corbusier's Domino house become the basic spatial configuration of low-income communities across the globe?’ (p. 35) make sense in the many countries where most self-help homes are made of wood.

In short, this is a flawed addition to the literature. It should have been more carefully edited to remove or at least qualify some of the more flamboyant assertions. Several chapters should have been updated before publication. And is it really acceptable to critique current thinking without reference to most of the literature that is being criticised?