ABSTRACT
In the preceding chapter Nigel Clark, citing Derrida (2001: 259), asks if urbanism can face the threat of catastrophe by admitting the unprogrammable at the border of its programme. Clark alludes to the enjoyment of unscripted encounters which he sees as characteristic of metropolitan life, and contrasts this with the heavy tread of regulation. Urbanism, it could be argued, is a discourse in relation to which various practices are situated, though it would be equally necessary to say that the discourse is situated in relation to the practices; but it would be difficult to argue that urbanism has a programme. Although the notion of a modern project has currency as an attempt to construct a society of the new, this is a figuration encapsulated in histories. Leaving that aside, the prospect of admitting the unprogrammable raises many questions. This conclusion examines three of them as a way to end the book without either summing up or unveiling a grand solution. If this is a diffusion rather than a bang, the grand finale is not the only way to end a piece of music. Sometimes the lingering sounds of a procession passing by give rise to unpredicted speculations. The questions are: first, how real and of what kind is the threat of catastrophe? second, what is the relation between the unprogrammable and claims for regulation in the public interest? and third, why is it relegated to the borders?
