I am very behind – not least because I get distracted by other things. But I am trying to catch up.
In my reading today, of chapter 5 of Making Social Lives, on p. 229 the author says:
“the argument should not be based on the idea that there once existed a high street that was somehow home-grown, coherent and disconnected from the world outside. Rather, if we were to lament the loss of a sense of place on these streets, then our argument would have to be that it is not that high streets have become more and more connected to the outside world, and therefore somehow weakened as unique places, but that the quality of the connections has changed. The challenge would be to seek to build better connections and so make better places.”
He has been previously arguing that the country idyll is imagined, I understand that, but why can’t you argue that a place should be unique?
He seems to be saying that cookie-cutter high streets with all the same chains of big stores can’t be argued against on any other basis than ‘connections’.
Am I missing something obvious?