But how then can we come up with new terms? It is interesting to see how metaphors of the body are often invoked when thinking about the city. I haven’t read Anthony Townsend’s article, but from your quote he seems to say that our view of the Modern City is imagined very statically by aerial photography as a “muscular and skeletal structure”, while our imagination of the post/late-modern city is much more dynamic and ‘mobile’ since urban informatics reveals its “circulatory and nervous systems”. Applying a ‘mobilities paradigm’ to our imagination of current cities is very tempting, but as Tim Cresswell has shown in his book “On The Move” (2006 pp. 7-8), such a dynamic metaphor has already existing much much longer. The early modern city too has been understood dynamically through the image of blood circulation. “Urban planners and architects sought to maximize flow and movement. Words such as artery and vein began to appear in the texts of the new urbanists”. So mobility and flow aren’t that new in conceptualizing the informational city characterized by it’s various configurations of ‘hybrid spaces’… Perhaps a good start could be to say farewell to physical metaphors like the human body, and start looking for practises that take place in both physical and digital spaces at the same time (e.g. play).