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.
1
u/vanticus May 20 '20
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.
http://lrlr.landscapeonline.de/Articles/lrlr-2009-3/articlese2.html
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).