This essay argues for ongoing critical engagement with the Chicago School of urban sociology despite its problematic foundations. Responding to Justus Uitermark, I contend that the Chicago School remains pedagogically, theoretically, and methodologically valuable when taught reflexively and in dialogue with later critiques, including the LA School. I frame the Chicago School as a flawed but provocative part of the canon for urban studies.
Pamela J. Prickett (Tue,) studied this question.