This book is an outstanding synthesis of architectural and urban studies, political and intellectual history, and good-old marxist polemics. The major lesson to draw from this book is that LIBERALISM IN AMERICA IS OVER. This is exemplified most profoundly in the chapter entitled "The Hammer and The Rock," where Davis makes the case that the LAPD's wars on drugs, gangs, and other things a racist might associate with inner-city youth amount to a neo-colonial occupation of poor (mostly colored) LA. This chapter is also widely credited with anticipating the 1992 uprisings.

As to the complaints others have lodged against Davis fact-checking and his general tone: these charges are at best specious and at worst libel. First of all, the book is impeccably documented and annotated, having been originally published by a reputable academic publisher (Verso). Second, his general point of political orientation and critique is unapologetically leftist. Not leftist as most American's (mis)understand the term --- i.e. hopelessly naive, pacificist, "tolerant," and so on --- but leftist in the venerable tradition of Marx and Engels, where it is assumed that there is ultimately no war but class war and never too much to know about the problems with ruling class methods of exploitation under capitalism. This means that Davis compensates for the paucity of justice in the world by injecting his rhetoric with equal helpings of sarcasm, irony, and, above all, humanity.

If you prefer books that find the Aristotelian "happy medium" between competing perspectives, this is not a book for you. If, on the other hand, you want to read a prophetic work of history that exemplifies what the application of good scholarship can be, this is your book.

This is a sociopolitical analysis of the dark side of the supposed Los Angeles promised land. It's often quite interesting in itself, though it meanders into academic obtuseness, sanctimonious sour grapes, and a lack of validity to the rest of the world. Mike Davis is a fine muckraker as he uncovers the unique and often bizarre cultural-economic-sociological-political structures of L.A. This applies especially to the sickening power of the real estate and development industries, and the forced and hyperbolic local obsession with maintaining upper-middle class lifestyles at the expense of the most horrific and downtrodden ghettos imaginable. This book nearly achieves victory with chapters 4 and 5 - two powerful manifestos, respectively, on the class separation quietly implemented by architects and planners, and the violent oppression of the lower classes by a hubristic law enforcement complex.

Unfortunately, the book fails as a whole due to the typical weaknesses of academic writing. The separate chapters probably originated as distinct research projects that are only categorically associated with the main thesis, and the reader may wonder why each passing subject belongs in the book. This applies most to the chapter on the L.A. Catholic Archdiocese, which is of especially dubious usefulness. Meanwhile, Davis is a classic detached academic who thinks he's writing a book for the masses, but can't stop trying to impress a few other professors. Thus we have the standard long-winded and obtuse professorial writing style, complete with continuous namedropping of other obscure intellectuals, vast postmodernist statements about vague connections between disparate social phenomena, and turning the names of social thinkers into adjectives (with the recurring suffix "-ian") to describe passing concepts. Davis also can't stop making up his own terms for one-time use in impressing academia, like "squirearchy," "cryogenized," or "monolithicity." And just try to digest the following statement from a discussion about the history of the L.A. jazz scene - "...seeking through introspection and experiment to fashion a hegemonic alternative to the deracination..." Perhaps Davis has managed to impress his colleagues with all this useless gobbledygook, but he has failed with the interested reader. And any audience will be ultimately disappointed with how Davis merely complains about all of L.A.'s problems without offering any (even high-level) solutions, while also forgetting to explore how any of this analysis can be applied to other cities or environments with similar problems. [~doomsdayer520~]

Mike Davis, in an interview, admitted that he does not let the facts stand in the way of his arguments. City of Quartz demonstrates this tendency to the fullest. In a previous work, Davis pulled a passage out of a work of fiction and cited it as fact. He shows similar inventiveness in this work, citing studies that were never conducted, inventing interviews, and displaying a creativity with statistics that would be admirable if it weren't for the frightening fact that many who have read this work found it "incisive."

Those who applaud this work do so because it supports their politics. Those who attack it do so because it does not. I tried to remain neutral while reading, but when I read the book I found the inaccuracies to completely outweigh any points made by Davis. His purposeful and methodical deception does more harm than good to his cause.

For more information on this work, see an article at:
(...)
I would steer clear of Mike Davis and his blatant distortions of the truth.

I'd just like to offer a voice of temperance after reading a number of the reviews here. The boogeyman mentions of Davis' "Marxist" leanings are worthy of the McCarthy hearings. The mock citations of the type "All the other books I read in the field are much better" are proof of the reviewers' pretentiousness rather than a comment on the value of Davis' book. And, the ad hominem attacks against Davis are unfortunate and probably fueled by the envy of the young and non-published towards Davis as a productive scholar who doesn't seem like he's going away anytime soon. All of which is to say, forget the negative reviews and give City of Quartz a read. It was an insightful, even shocking, book when I read it years ago and continues to make for a solid supplement to a lived experience and a wide-range of contrasting readings on L.A. (as well as a good antidote against the boosterism and dreamy-eyed tripe that often goes around about our city).

This book presents a very antiquated and negatively biased view of LA. I am left doubtful if many of the scenarios in the book were as "bad" as the author leads the reader to believe.
It is naive on the part of the author to separate the actual problems of LA from other large American cities, and present them as mutually exclusive to LA.
This book panders to a seemingly worldwide hatred of LA, and a kind of love affair with the notion of a eventual LA apocalypse.
What a disappointment that the author investigates no deeper than what the popular opinion of Los Angeles is, and panders to this misconception.