Those who believe that the "true" city is that of the past say that urban expansion has killed the city. Out in the territory into which the megalopolis sprawls there are still medium and large cities whích continue to function as nuclei, metropolises which have remained compact, whose focus has not been lost, thanks to their history, to their continuing vivacity. Even a sprawling, overflowing dynamic like that of Tokyo continues to be a city, perhaps even a model for the city of the future. Full of conflicts and obstacles, sordid, gloomy, even uncivilised, the city is a powerful machine of integration, the place where chance encounters, random combinations, are still possible. A place of virtual partners, according to the Swedish anthropologist Ulf Hannerz. This is what is important, and many are willing to put up with the dangers, expenses and impositions of urban life in exchange for this albeit abstract potential for interaction anytime, anywhere. There is no valid substitute for face-to-face interaction. Sure, the power of thought has always been capable of overcoming problems of spatial separation; you can always contemplate your favorite blond angel, even at a distance of 10,000 kilometres, in fact it is usually a good idea to keep idols at more than an arm's length. But nobody can convince me that communications technology can take the place of personal interaction between the inhabitants of a city. It can add something to life, but it cannot replace real contact. Video conferencing just might, but not always, be good for business. A stroll through a suburban shopping mall is amusing, but it doesn't produce the city-effect, and in America many are becoming disenchanted.