Writing about comparative urbanism is a precarious business that more often than not polarises opinions. This book is no exception. There will be those, like me, for whom this is a missed opportunity to capitalise on the bright ideas consistent with the novel approach suggested by Glenn Storey, which would result in unifying rather than splitting the perception of what is urban. For others, this will be an erudite overview and an honest account of the difficulties of reaching consensus on the matter. If the potential readership comprises scholars well versed in the urban debate, there will be little that is new—rather familiar arguments organised in a new and fascinating way. Urban novices will be treated to an atypical academic text with few references, an easy-going and interactive, conversational style without bogged-down discussion of definitions, and with textbook-type exercises at the end of each chapter. Thus, the Introduction (Chapter 1) and the ‘theoretical’ Chapter 2 contain statements rather than debates of research arguments, and data rather than assessment of results and selective analyses. The reader is introduced to what Childe, Toynbee and Wirth, among others, have said, but their identities and the source of their gravitas remain hidden. Such an approach is, perhaps, justifiable if the aim is to transmit information quickly without a surfeit of critical thinking, but how is one to develop critical thinking if things are presented without assessment, and one is still lacking the apparatus to make up one's own mind? Critical thinking is more than simply saying a certain definition is right or wrong; it is the ability to appreciate and learn to develop various lines of evidence in conjunction with theory and practice. With the exception, perhaps, of presenting diverse points of view, this book stops short of taking the important step of developing critical thinking. Development of analytical skills is a crucial stage—but one that is largely missing here.

Writing about urbanism always carries the risk of essentialism and Storey largely manages to avoid it. There are, however, universalistic claims of which one should be wary (e.g. the criteria for urbanism or the insistence that cities need to have a tiered settlement system).

Storey makes a series of crucial points, some of which he reflects on consistently throughout the book and others that appear contradictory at certain points in the volume. Among the former are the notion that cities are a combination of people (social) and place (physical), and the recognition that English-language classification of living places may not be universal (e.g. Dutch classification, pp. 5–6; or the employment of the African term ‘mbanza’, p. 64). From the latter, I shall dwell on the three that I find both most important and perplexing. Storey differentiates between primary cities (Hierakonpolis, Teotihuacan and Copán in Chapter 4) and secondary urban formations (Rome, Gyeongju and Great Zimbabwe in Chapter 5), but also states that “we cannot really discern any significant differences between primary and secondary cities” (p. 143). Perhaps the choice of sites has something to do with this negative conclusion—small wonder that the mighty Teotihuacan makes it difficult to recognise emergent, as opposed to a more developed, urbanism.

A further contradictory aspect of the text is that although the importance of emic perceptions is rightly acknowledged, most prominently in the views of Aristotle regarding the Greek polis, the etic perceptions are privileged in this book with multiple definitions and descriptions. Finally, and perhaps most importantly is the problematic definition of a city offered on page 14. This is positive in that it allows agency to ‘the beholder’, but this agency is restricted by two caveats: that there must be agreement among scholars of a particular culture that those sites are cities in their best unbiased professional opinion; and that the community of scholars who study ancient urban civilisations must also agree with this assessment. This is not only naïve and utopian, but also surprising given the uphill struggle, acknowledged by Storey himself, for recognition of idiosyncratic African urbanism or low-density urbanism. Surprising, too, in light of his mature discussion of population size and density as opposed to the more traditional debate of high vs low density urbanism and the dismissal of the latter. In effect, ‘the eye of the beholder’ becomes the ‘eye that has seen much evidence, has made up its mind and has the power to impose a view’. This privileges the view of the traditional Western scholar in a secure academic position.

Chapter 6 presents ‘Disputed Cases and Conclusions’. In this chapter, instead of staying with his own workable urban typology developed in Chapter 3, which succeeds in embracing the great diversity of urban forms in the tripartite classification of micro-, hyper- and hypo-cities, Storey reverts to a rather rigid and inflexible discussion of ‘borderline cases’ where the old ghosts of ‘legacy’ and ‘stone architecture’ creep back in.

From a production perspective it is a pity that quite a number of illustrations are either out of focus or too small to be legible, as they are numerous and potentially very informative. This book is about the many (those widely known ancient cities), not the few (those still awaiting recognition as urban, such as Cahokia and Chaco Canyon, here relegated to Chapter 6). In keeping with democratic principles, what the many represents is important, but this is a missed opportunity to give a stronger voice to the few. The New World focus, together with one East Asian and two African examples, is refreshing, however. Overall, urban novice or old hand, this is a useful book that shares the palpable depth and breadth of Storey's knowledge of many complex aspects of cities, both in terms of data and theory. Every reader is bound to get something out of this volume.