Place

Silvia De Nardis, Sapienza University of Rome 

Definition

Place is a physical and symbolic domain in which personal and/or collective cultural meanings, lifestyles, habits, values and identities are harboured. It refers to multi-scale and multi-faceted contexts that encompass various settings, including rooms, buildings, streets, parks, cities, or entire regions. Nevertheless, the place is more than a locality or an ensemble of material components and geographical coordinates. It differs from the space as geometrically understood, representing a field of relationship and identity foundation, with references that are sometimes ethical, philosophical, and political. The place is steeped with meaning and, therefore, endowed with a sense of place often rooted in community life (Tuan, 1977). The meaning and memory of a place endure long after the place itself has been physically altered (Cox, 1968). The place can be configured as a lived space, a space of memory, or a space perceived and actively practised by people at a particular time in history. A place results from a dynamic psychological and/or social relationship with space. It defines the field in which different subjectivities shape their experiences, social life develops, and the public sphere is built. 

Background information and contemporary debate 

At the end of the 1990s, a vibrant and multidisciplinary debate on the notion of place emerged in academia, prompting sociologists, geographers, architects, planners, and philosophers to question how to interpret the causal relations between space, society, and the human-environmental realm (Gans, 2002). The growing interest in the immaterial and symbolic dimensions of the city stems from the consolidation of a distance from the abstract definition of space based on the recognition of place as a central element in everyday and public life. 

Marc Augé (1992) refers to it as an “anthropological place,” a space constructed symbolically by the community through the cultural process of defining identity and establishing a sense of belonging. It is identitarian, relational and historical and differs from “non-place”, a term the author uses to indicate spatial areas where social ties are hampered or very difficult to build. In Michel de Certeau’s theory (1990), people’s narrative actions, even the seemingly less disruptive ones such as walking, reading or living, transform mere inexpressive materiality into “lived space”. They can overturn established meanings, giving a new social value to space and cultural reality. 

More recently, Gieryn (2000) suggests that a place results from three essential characteristics: a situated and unique geographic location, its material form and an investment with meaning and value. Similarly, Agnew (2011) recognises a location (a site in space), locales (social settings in which everyday life activities take place), and a sense of place (identification of something special tied to the community’s unique space or moral attitude). In this conceptualisation, people are emotionally invested in places where they feel they belong, such as workspaces, churches, homes, and virtual spaces like Internet chat rooms. A third approach to place (Massey, 2005) is to see it as fully relational, meaning that it is formed by social, cultural, and political relations, all more or less power-laden, that often originate from outside the place itself and where their particular local intersection over time is what makes up the place, including local symbols and narratives. From this viewpoint, places are open to change as internal and external relations evolve.  

Place is an essential subject in urban research and a crucial challenge in contemporary city-making. Scholars in different disciplines agree on the central role of spaces’ cultural, relational and social components, recognising that place and people should be at the heart of planning (Cresswell, 2004). This vision represents the founding nucleus of placemaking, a collaborative, place-based and community-centred approach aimed at transforming built environments into vibrant places by enhancing local resources and caring for people’s needs and desires.

References

Agnew, J. (2011). Space and place. In J. Agnew & D. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of geographical knowledge (pp. 316-330). SAGE.

Augé, M. (1992). Non-lieux. Introduction à une anthropologie de la surmodernité. Editions du Seuil.

Cox, H. (1968). The restoration of a sense of place: A theological reflection on the visual environment. Ekistics, 25, 151, 1968, pp. 422-424.

Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A short introduction. Blackwell.

De Certeau, M. (1990). L’invention du quotidien. L’arts de faire. Editions Gallimard.

Gans, H. J. (2002). A sociology of space: A use-centered view. City & Community, 1(4), 329-339. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6040.00027

Gieryn, T. F. (2000). A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 463-496. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.463

Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: SAGE.

Tuan, Y. (1977). Space and place. The perspective of experience. University of Minnesota Press.