Making Sense of Places
2009; Routledge; Volume: 14; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/13264820903049224
ISSN1755-0475
Autores Tópico(s)Religious Tourism and Spaces
ResumoAbstract This paper explores the connections between whose representation of space, and whose modalities are “desirable” as part of the design of public spaces. Drawing on the theoretical framework of Henri Lefebvre, we reiterate the importance of “spatial practice” as a key tenet running right through the urban “design control” process. Second, we examine the ways in which subsequent multi-modal representations of urban space might act as a rejoinder to questions raised by the “moral geographies” literature, concluding that a consideration of “moral geographies” offers one way to unlock the multi-modal qualities associated with a progressive sensory urbanism. Notes 1. Juhani Pallasmaa, The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses, London: Academic Editions, 2005, p. 28. 2. Frederick Gutheim, “Urban Space and Urban Design”, in Lowdon Wingo (ed.), Cities and Space: the Future Use of Urban Land, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press, 1963, p. 111. 3. Kevin Lynch, Good City Form, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981; Kevin Lynch, The Image of the City, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960. 4. Amongst these are Yi-Fu Tuan, Space and Place: the Perspective of Experience Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 1977; and Douglas Porteous, Landscapes of the Mind: Worlds of Sense and Metaphor, London: University of Toronto Press, 1990. 5. David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1989. 6. Pallasmaa, Eyes of the Skin, p. 19. 7. Charles Landry, The Art of City-Making, Stroud: Comedia, 2006. 8. Charles Landry, “The Art of Creative City-Making”, Vista, 5 (December 2007): 5. 9. Landry, Art of Creative City-Making, p. 5. 10. Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1991. 11. Tim Cresswell, “Moral Geographies”, in David Atkinson, Peter Jackson, David Sibley, and Neil Washbourne (eds.), Cultural Geography: A Critical Dictionary of Key Concepts, London: I.B. Taurus, p. 128. 12. A series of reviews of moral geographical research written by David Smith can be found in: David Smith, “Geography and Ethics: A Moral Turn?”, Progress in Human Geography, 21, 4 (1997): 583–590; David Smith, “Moral Progress in Human Geography: Transcending the Place of Good Fortune”, Progress in Human Geography, 24, 1 (2000): 1–18; and David Smith, “Geography and Ethics: Progress or More of the Same?”, Progress in Human Geography, 25, 2 (2001): 261–268. 13. David Livingstone, “Geographical Inquiry, Rational Religion, and Moral Philosophy: Enlightenment Discourses on the Human Condition”, in David Livingstone and Charles Withers (eds.), Geography and Enlightenment, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1999, pp. 93–119. 14. Lily Kong, “Music and Cultural Politics: Ideology and Resistance in Singapore”, Transactions, Institute of British Geographers, 20, 4 (1995): 447–459. 15. Noel Castree, “Synthesis and Engagement: Critical Geography and the Biotechnology Century”, Environment and Planning A, 31, 5 (1999): 763–766. 16. Rafael Pizarro, “Teaching to Understand the Urban Sensorium in the Digital Age: Lessons from the Studio”, Design Studies, 30, 3 (2009): 274, doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.09.002. 17. David Howes, “Charting the Sensorial Revolution”, Senses & Society, 1, 1 (2006): 115. 18. Ian Bentley, Alan Alcock, Paul Murrain, Sue McGlynn and Graham Smith (eds.), Responsive Environments: A Manual, Sevenoaks: Butterworth, 1985. 19. Richard Sennett, Flesh and Stone, London: Faber & Faber, 1994. 20. Terance Miethe, “Fear and Withdrawal from Urban Life”, Annals, American Academy of Political and Social Science, 539, 1 (1995): 14–27. 21. For example, Jay Walljasper, The Great Neighbourhood Book: A Do-It-Yourself Guide to Placemaking, New York: New Society, 2007; How to Turn a Place Around, New York: Project for Public Space, 2000; and Cooper Marcus and Carolyn Francis, People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Spaces, New York: Wiley, 1998. 22. Ali Madaniporur, “Design and Development of Public Spaces”, in Alexander Cuthbert (ed.), Designing Cities: Critical Readings in Urban Design, Oxford: Blackwell, 2003, p. 148. 23. Ash Amin and Nigel Thrift, Cities: Reimagining the Urban, Cambridge: Polity, 2003. 24. Tia DeNora, Music in Everyday Life, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 25. Susan Smith, “Soundscape”, Area, 26, 3 (2006): 232–240. 26. Ben Anderson, “Recorded Music and Practices of Remembering”, Social and Cultural Geography, 5, 1 (2004): 3–20. 27. George Revill, “Music and the Politics of Sound: Nationalism, Citizenship and Auditory Space”, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18 (2000): 597–613. 28. Kong, “Music and Cultural Politics”. 29. Smith, “Soundscape”, p. 232. 30. Daniele Dubois, Catherine Guastavino and Manon Raimbault, “A Cognitive Approach to Urban Soundscapes: Using Verbal Data to Access Everyday Life Auditory Categories”, Acta Acustica, 92, 6 (2006): 865. 31. Manon Raimbault and Daniele Dubois, “Urban Soundscapes: Experiences and Knowledge”, Cities, 22, 5 (2005): 345. 32. Phil Hubbard, “Space/Place”, in Atkinson et al., Cultural Geography, p. 41. 33. Anssi Paasi, “The Institutionalization of Regions: A Theoretical Framework for Understanding the Emergence of Regions and the Constitution of Regional Identity”, Fennia, 164, 1 (1986): 111. 34. John Agnew, “Space:Place”, in Paul Cloke and Ron Johnston (eds.), Spaces of Geographical Thought, London: Sage, 2005, pp. 89–96. 35. Cf. Robert Sack, Homo Geographicus, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1997. 36. Agnew, “Space:Place”, p. 90. 37. In particular, see Doreen Massey, Space, Place and Gender, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press, 1994; and Doreen Massey, “Spaces of Politics”, in Doreen Massey, John Allen and Philip Sarre (eds.), Human Geography Today, Cambridge: Polity, 1999. 38. Nigel Thrift, “Steps to an Ecology of Place”, in Massey et al., Human Geography Today, pp. 295–323. 39. Agnew, “Space:Place”, p. 92. 40. Examples include analysis by sociologists, for example, Mark Gottdiener, “A Marx of Our Time: Henri Lefebvre and the Production of Space”, Sociological Theory, 11, 1 (1993): 129–134, and Mark Gottdiener, “Lefebvre and the Bias of Academic Urbanism: What Can We Learn from the ‘New’ Urban Analysis?”, City, 4, 1 (2000): 93–100. And also in geography, including Andrew Merrifield, “Place and Space: A Lefebvrian Reconciliation”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 18, 4 (1993): 516–531; and Tim Unwin, “A Waste of Space? Towards a Critique of the Social Production of Space”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 25, 1 (2000): 1–29. 41. These notions are outlined in Lefebvre, Production of Space, pp. 210–212. 42. Raimbault and Dubois, “Urban Soundscapes”, pp. 339–350; and for a development of this review, see Mei Zhang and Jian Kang, “Towards the Evaluation, Description, and Creation of Soundscapes in Urban Open Spaces”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34, 1 (2007): 68–86. 43. Lefebvre expands this in Lefebvre, Production of Space, p. 33. 44. Eugene McCann, “Race, Protest, and Public Space: Contextualizing Lefebvre in the U.S. City”, Antipode, 31, 2 (1999): 163–184. 45. Nicholas Fyfe, “Contested Visions of a Modern City: Planning and Poetry in Postwar Glasgow”, Environment and Planning A, 28, 3 (1996): 387–403. 46. Merrifield, “Place and Space”, pp. 516–531. 47. Merrifield, “Place and Space”, p. 524. 48. Neil Brenner, “The Urban Question as Scale Question: Reflections on Henri Lefebvre, Urban Theory and the Politics of Scale”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24, 2, (2000): 375. 49. Lefebvre's concern with the “social construction of space” has resulted in subsequent research in this framework failing sufficiently to consider questions of temporality, and by focussing on space as the implicit end product, is unable to address the question of how to change human society (see Unwin, “A Waste of Space”, pp. 11–29). Other critiques of Lefebvre raise caveats about his lack of concern for semiotic aspects of space and issues of gender and race (see Gottdiener, “Lefebvre and the Bias of Academic Urbanism”, pp. 93–100; and McCann, that Lefebvre's (1991) fetishizing of space over place favours abstractions (abstract space) rather than focussing attention on multi-modal qualities of sensory urbanism. 50. In his Eye of the Skin Pallasmaa gives a more detailed account of how he believes different senses have been incorporated into architecture and how they can be revealed or sensed. 51. These have included studies of children (e.g. Gill Valentine, “Angels and Devils: Moral Landscapes of Childhood”, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 14, 5 (1997): 581–599); homeless people (Tim Cresswell, “Embodiment, Power and the Politics of Mobility: The Case of Female Tramps and Hobos”, Transactions, Institute of British Geographers, 24 (1999): 175–192); and the disabled (Rob Kitchin, “Out of Place, Knowing One's Place: Space, Power and the Exclusion of Disabled People”, Disability and Society, 13, 3 (1998): 343–356). 52. Pallasmaa, Eye of the Skin, p. 35. 53. Paul Cloke, “Deliver Us from Evil? Prospects for Living Ethically and Acting Politically in Human Geography”, Progress in Human Geography, 26, 5 (2002): 587–604. 54. Robin Kearns, “(Dis)spirited Geography?”, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 22, 3 (2001): 169–183. 55. David Smith, Moral Geographies: Ethics in a World of Difference, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000. See also further discussion of challenging moral certainties in Paul Cloke, “Deliver Us from Evil?” and Gill Valentine, “Geography and Ethics: Moral Geographies? Ethical Commitment in Research and Teaching”, Progress in Human Geography, 29, 4 (2005): 483–487. 56. Kanishka Goonewardena, “The Urban Sensorium: Space, Ideology and the Aestheticization of Politics”, Antipode, 37, 1 (2005): 68.
Referência(s)