The spaces many of us hold close, because so meaningful and dear, are those of home±of the homes we were raised in, the ones we abandoned, the ones we live in. In Sandra Buckley's (1996: 441) guided tour of Japanese life, the protagonist of the novel Kitchen statesI think the place I love the most in the world is the kitchen'. Perhaps it is because these spaces are so meaningful, so complex and so close that we tend to keep our distance from them in our research. But perhaps too it is that until recently geography and geographers did not move past the front stoop (but see Loyd, 1975; 1981; Seager, 1987). To do so would be to move out of the realm of social science research as defined, and into the world of humanities, of emotions and meanings. Yet integral to feminist analyses have been the unmasking of biases that have directed fields of study, a reshaping of the contours of acceptable objects and subjects of study, and new ways of interpreting traditional material. So, in recent years, feminist geographers have re-examined and reclaimed as an object of study that which has often been ignored: house and home, the household, and the domestic world. While the issues I focused on in the last report continued to elicit some of the most thought-provoking essays published recently (see, for example, Johnston, 1996; Nash, 1996a; OÂ Tuathail, 1996; Tickell and Peck, 1996; Kay, 1997; Martin, 1997; Nagar, 1997; Pulsipher, 1997), I want to expand my scope here to encompass different stories±those about home, as a landscape form, as an economic entity and as a domestic space.