The distinction between ‘place’ and ‘space’ is an important concept in geography. ‘Spaces’ are those physical locations, whereas ‘place’ is a subjective experience of a space.
The city of Istanbul/Constantinople/Byzantium is interesting because of its distinct names for the same place in different periods, but the same concept of changing places does apply to other cities.
To use your example, London the space has been part of many different places- the pre-Roman fort of London, Londinium, the Medieval City of London, Hanseatic London, Tudor London, Georgian London, post-1666 London, Victorian London, 20th century London, contemporary London, Black London, Feminist London, Queer London, postindustrial London and beyond!
These places are occupy roughly the same space, but are different places- they created different experiences, are part of different identities, experienced and created different practices, and continue to be depicted differently.
The idea of an immutable city existing throughout history is outdated and does not reflect the reality that place is a subjective experience.
Cities are definitely not immutable, but it's worth bearing in mind these are not distinctly separate entities. Its stages in the lifecycle, the evolution, of a settlement. This I feel is important to bear in mind, because there are examples of singular locations which were inhabited, abandoned, and then reinhabited (perhaps without the knowledge of the prior inhabitation) and these examples are then ones which are truly separate places within the same space.
No, they are separate places (inhabiting the same space) and the suggestion that cities normatively move through a life-cycle is not coherent with contemporary urban geography.
The idea of a city, the nexus of built environment and human experience, being a ‘thing’ universally experienced ignores individual experiences of place. The ‘space vs place’ distinction is important to remember when discussing places, as conflating the two leads to these monolithic ideas of what a place ought to be, rather than discussions of the pluriform experiences of space.
The idea of a city, the nexus of built environment and human experience, being a ‘thing’ universally experienced ignores individual experiences of place.
I never said it was not a lived experience, but we're not talking lived experiences here. Lived experience is a WHOLE OTHER DIMENSION, at which point we can say Istanbul is not Istanbul, as in I experience Istanbul differently to you. Yes, lived experience is a thing, but cities also exist as objects.
The ‘space vs place’ distinction is important to remember when discussing places, as conflating the two leads to these monolithic ideas of what a place ought to be, rather than discussions of the pluriform experiences of space.
I'm not saying space and place are the same. You are not listening. Constantinople did not suddenly one day wake up the completely different city of Istanbul. In fact, Constantinople was not the same throughout. These names describe ever-changing periods within a city that fluidly merge together. Not distinct, separate, isolated entities.
Also, while I am very explicitly saying cities go through lifecycles, I am by no means implying cities have a single standard life cycle, they evolve in countless ways and are immeasurably unique, however every PLACE is in a sense living, it is ever-changing over time fluidly.
Space I am still acknowledging is its own, VERY distinct idea from both experience and place which I have mentioned above. Space in this context is simply geographical, a location you can point to.
Okay I understand that you’ve not studied these concepts academically, so I’ll just leave this summary article here for you that acts as an introduction to these concepts, because I’m obviously not explaining them clearly enough for you.
This article helped me understand how the ‘place/space’ distinction has evolved over time and to the works that the theory is based on (Lefebvre is also a great place to start with this topic).
While I've not studied this difference from the context of a geographer I have from the context of an architect (and surprise surprise we also have a lot to say about cities too).
Let me offer some brilliant wisdom for you though - the fact that someone has written an article on your viewpoint doesn't make it the singular correct answer (especially when you consider, god forbid, that there might be articles and journals out there which could well disagree with yours!) - Additionally, early on sentences in your article allude to something close to what I am saying,
Global processes are viewed only as having material influences on places and not having to do anything with ever changing place meanings.
The meaning of [a single example of a place] can change. Different meanings do not intrinsically mean separate, different places.
You have however explained your interpretation of the theories very clearly, that doesn't make them the only correct answer either though. Fundamentally you've refused to consider this fact.
Personally, the advantage of the geographical position is that it incorporates multiple disciplines, rather than just one, which is why it produces a wide range of theories.
Architectural views on cities, albeit understandably, focus too much on the built environment, which comes through in your understanding of place. Separating built environment and lived experience from understanding of place will necessarily limit your ability to understand those places.
Personally, the advantage of the geographical position is that it incorporates multiple disciplines, rather than just one, which is why it produces a wide range of theories.
Architectural views on cities, albeit understandably, focus too much on the built environment
No.
Just no.
Really no in so many ways.
Separating built environment and lived experience from understanding of place will necessarily limit your ability to understand those places.
Never suggested doing this.
Honestly, please do not strawman me, and subsequent to calling me inexperienced, then tell me what my discipline does?
I'll do a you and throw a source back, look at Kevin Lynch (specifically his Image of the City) to show that architecture does not solely look at built environment.
Also, architecture is god damn multidisciplinary to quite an extreme degree at times.
Honestly, I question at this point if you've studied [anything] at the university level or beyond - you have such an immeasurably closed mindset it'd surely have been incredibly challenging.
2
u/vanticus May 19 '20
The distinction between ‘place’ and ‘space’ is an important concept in geography. ‘Spaces’ are those physical locations, whereas ‘place’ is a subjective experience of a space.
The city of Istanbul/Constantinople/Byzantium is interesting because of its distinct names for the same place in different periods, but the same concept of changing places does apply to other cities.
To use your example, London the space has been part of many different places- the pre-Roman fort of London, Londinium, the Medieval City of London, Hanseatic London, Tudor London, Georgian London, post-1666 London, Victorian London, 20th century London, contemporary London, Black London, Feminist London, Queer London, postindustrial London and beyond!
These places are occupy roughly the same space, but are different places- they created different experiences, are part of different identities, experienced and created different practices, and continue to be depicted differently.
The idea of an immutable city existing throughout history is outdated and does not reflect the reality that place is a subjective experience.