‘Area approaches’ have become a new conventional wisdom for dealing with urban deprivation. Such thinking is evident in Michael Heseltine's Liverpool ‘initiative’. This article contributes to an emerging critique of such approaches, by highlighting some political and organizational problems rather than stressing their incipient economic difficulties. Arguably the biggest anti‐deprivation project in Western Europe, the Glasgow Eastern Area Renewal scheme (GEAR) is taken as a case study. Official claims of success are juxtaposed against an alternative perspective outlining possible weaknesses and dilemmas. Critical analysis leads to the conclusion that the GEAR constellation of organizations may be best regarded as a mutually non‐effective organizational set. The persistence of such an institution, while serving short‐term political and administrative needs, may unwittingly produce longer‐term negative political and social consequences. The authors argue that if such problems are to be avoided in the future, the political and organizational drawbacks of this type of initiative must