高级空间分析中心（Centre for Advanced SpatialAnalysis）主任
I: Your new book is titled as the “new” science of cities. Which “old” science is it compared with? Can we put it this way, that the academia has made a substantial amount of achievements in urban complexity and network research to give impetus to a “new science”?
B: It’s a good question. One thing which I say in the book is that there is not just one new science. There are many new sciences of the city. And the reason why I call it “the new science” is because many of the techniques and tools are relatively new, compared to the older science. The older science was related to urban economics, social physics, central place theory, transportation-type theory, etc. In other words, the old science was what was loosely called “regional science”. And it was based on much more static and cross-sectional view of cities, which takes city as a system; while the newer science is based on the idea of evolving cities and complexity theory. To some extent, a way of talking about the new science is to say all of the new tools and techniques, which have come over the last twenty to twenty-five years, and it is related to complexity theory. So there are many different dimensions in which we can characterize the new science, such as disaggregation, bottom-up thinking, evolution and so on.