Abstract
Our practical knowledge of cities is based on an implicit understanding of how socio‐economic attributes and land use activities are bundled up into characteristic “places.” Despite this practical imperative, the regional science literature does poorly in describing, yet alone explaining, the spatial structure of large, complex metropolitan areas. It is argued that concise descriptive tools are a prerequisite for evaluating or assessing competing urban theories. Factor analysis is applied to Los Angeles data and its general usefulness as a descriptive tool is assessed. As a descriptive tool factor analysis offers several attractive features; it is quantitative yet qualitative, interpretive yet empirical, numerical yet visual.

This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit: