Kerstin Nordin
1
Some Aspects of Place, Place-making and Representation
Place is for me a key concept in landscape architecture1. As landscape architects we direct our
attention both in research and as professionals towards biological, physical, esthetical and social
features and values connected to a location or a site. Tom Turner (In Thompson, 1999, p.3) suggests
that landscape means ‘a good place’. Thompson then suggests that “Landscape science is concerned
with seeking knowledge about good places”. His comment points at the connection between place
and value in landscape architecture. In a recent definition from ECLAS (European Council of
Landscape Architect Schools), places are the object for the landscape architecture discipline. The
‘good’ is dismissed and instead the aim is to create places that are: “….functional, beautiful and
sustainable (in every sense of the word), and appropriate to diverse human and ecological needs.”(
http://www.eclas.org/landscape-architecture-european-dimension.php).
In this text for the seminar I am discussing some aspects of place, place-making and representation
by looking into some theories in the fields of human geography, landscape architecture and planning.
My ambition is to provide some fragments of the discourse that I find interesting in the light of my
research on how professionals as e.g. landscape architects can understand children’s places. The text
is very much a work in progress. Parts of it will be included in the theory section in my kappa.
My search for an understanding of the concept ‘place’ starts with consulting “Key Thinkers on Space
and Place” (Hubbard, Kitchin, & Valentine, 2004). In the editors’ introduction the broad lines of the
discourse on space and place are drawn. The editors identify the 1970’s as a starting point for the
discussion within human geography. They recognize that the discussion was influenced by urban
sociologists, starting to discuss space as part of social relations – space as being both socially
constructed and consumed (ibid., pp. 4-5). They mean that today: “For many geographers, place
thus represents a distinctive (and more or less bounded) type of space that is defined by (and
constructed in terms of) the lived experiences of people. “ (Hubbard et al., 2004, p. 5). To me this is
quite a different approach to ‘place’ than expressed in the definition offered by ECLAS, mentioned
above. The lived experiences of people are not explicit in the definition.
Some of the thinkers presented in ‘Key Thinkers’ attracted my attention as addressing issues of
interest in my research.
I am starting with Henri Lefebvre and his articulation of space as being socially produced. By the
concept of the trialectic of spatiality he “[…] explores the differential entwining of cultural
practices, representations and imaginations. Moving away from an analysis of things in
space, this is an account that sees space as ‘made up’ through a three-way dialectic between
perceived, conceived and lived space.”(Hubbard et al., 2004, p. 5).
The difference between the conceived space of geographers and architects, and perceived and lived
space of people in everyday life is pointing to the challenge landscape architects face when
proposing changes that makes ‘good places’.
1
Landscape architecture as an umbrella for landscape planning, landscape design and landscape management.
Kerstin Nordin
2
Lefebvre was not alone .The ‘people-less’ spatial science was in the 1970’s challenged by
geographers building on the philosophy of phenomenology focusing on experiential properties of
space (Hubbard et al., 2004, p. 5). One example is Yi-Fu Tuan, who’s works “… expand concepts
of geography beyond the physical towards the metaphysical, ethical and aesthetic”
(Rodaway, 2004, p. 307). In “Space and Place: Humanistic Perspective” (1974), Tuan
discusses place. He has noted that people talk about the ‘spirit’ of a place, a place’s
‘personality’ and a ‘sense’ of place. ’Sense of place’ is, according to Tuan, about experience
the world through one’s senses, and by that getting to know a location as a distinctive place.
The phenomenological view on place has also inspired theories in architecture and
landscape architecture especially the writing by Norberg-Schulz (Jörgensen, 2003; Robinson,
2003), as I will come back to below.
According to “Key Thinkers”, by stressing the authentic, close and lived aspects of places
some critically voices argues that the complexity of places are neglected and by that the
institutional and social forces that shape places (e.g. Doreen Massey). By adding this aspect,
the editors develop the definition of place: “Places are thus relational and contingent,
experienced and understood differently by different people: they are multiple, contested,
fluid and uncertain (rather than fixed territorial units).” (Hubbard et al., 2004, p. 6).
If places are understood differently by different people, as being part of one’s identity and
relation to the world – how can environmental design professionals relate to this view? Can
landscape architects make places as part of their profession?
Place-making.
The editors of “Key Thinkers” mention a strand in geographic enquiry - Landscape studies
represented by Carl Sauer and the German landschaft tradition - with an emphasis on ‘place-making’
(Hubbard et al., 2004, p. 6). Place-making is explained as “the manner in which ways of life are
inscribed into the landscape”, (ibid., p. 6.) Not only takes culture place, it also makes place (ibid., p.7).
In these landscape studies historic aspects are often addressed.
In writings about place in architecture theory, the concept place-making also appears. Christian
Norberg-Schulz writes in his book ‘Genius Loci’, (1980 )that the purpose of architecture is to create
meaningful places(Robinson, 2003). This central figure of thought of ‘genius loci’ is expressed in a
verse by Alexander Pope (1688-1744), and is the ‘the single agreed law of landscape design’ (Turner
in Thompson, 1999, p. 25). The idea is connected to ‘critical regionalism’, in its focus on searching for
the distinctiveness of a place. This approach also took the empirical project forward. Pope wrote
”Consult the Genius of the Place in all …” (ibid., p.54), which goes well with survey – analyse – design,
advocated as a mean for landscape architects to get a grip of a place.
The question is if children’s experiences of a place are part of the ‘genius’. To me it seems that
people are not included in the environment, and that it is the architect’s judgement to decide what is
meaningful. ”Meaning is given through comprehending our human condition as expressed by the
drama of our actions performed upon a stage of these places.” (Robinson, 2004, p. 144). To me this
poetic expression seems to see place as a stage or backdrop to human action, not as an
Kerstin Nordin
3
interrelationship. The divide outlined in the beginning of this essay between the conceived space of
planners and the lived space of the people living in an area is not at outspoken with in a discourse
about place-making. Talking about meaningful places is close to discuss place-quality and values.
I will now turn to I.H. Thompson (1999). He has a background in philosophy as well as in landscape
architecture. Place-making in architecture and planning is connected to values. Central values in
landscape architecture as expressed by Thompson are ecology, community and delight. My
interpretation of these broad concepts is: Ecology - the natural science approach to a place,
detached, measurable, absolute space. Delight – the artistic approach, the architect’s personal sense
of place and possibilities to express it, experienced. The third value, community addresses social
issues and a will to include values perceived by local people. I see that for those holding community
values high, there is a tension between lived space and conceived space that could be addressed as
an issue of representation and communication.
The community approach has much theory in common with planning theory. Patsy Healy’s book
“Making Better Places” (2010) offers a point of departure for the discussion. Healey is representing
an interpretative turn in planning theory and a spokesperson for collaborative planning
(Allmendinger, 2009, p. 44). Healey states that deliberate actions are often giving places their
physical form. The major challenge in such deliberate intervention is to grasp the relation between
an image (conceived space) of urban form and the impact it will have on people’s perceptions and
lives.
How does she understand the idea of ‘place’? She argues that planners have tended to see ‘places’ as
physical materialities. But from social theory and urban geography have we learned that ‘…places
and place-making are deeply social and political concepts and activities, in which meanings and
values are created in interaction with lived experiences and, often, with available formalized
scientific evidence…’(Healey, 2010, p. 33). She uses the term ‘sense of place’ and place quality as
‘some kind of coming together of physical experiences (…) and imaginative constructions (…)
produced through individual activity and socially formed appreciations.’(ibid., p.34). To Healey this
implicates a demand for a ‘holistic’ sensibility for those taking part in public place-making (ibid., p.
35). This approach is not shared amongst all planners as discussed in the thesis by Sara Westin
(2010).
I mean that in Healey’s writing the materiality aspect of place is emphasized compared to the
discourse in human geography. She takes the concept of place a step closer to making, putting in it
planning contexts which ask for action, to support shaping of place-qualities. Her text is making a
case against a common view amongst planners and natural geographers that place and space are
absolute, measurable and objective.
Representation of places
Healey states that in planning, representations on maps and other forms of imagery are important.
She recognise that place imageries are not neutral in their content or their effect. Although not easily
done, representations can communicate pluralistic conceptions of place into social learning
processes. This will enhance understanding on what place-qualities that is on stake (Healey 2010, pp.
35-36). In her view, this is not a task only for the trained planner, but for all that has a stake in a
place.
Kerstin Nordin
4
The editors in “Key Thinkers…” points to the interest of the politics of representation of place within
critical as well as postmodern, and post-structural theories. How representations construct people as
well as places. How maps offer a partial, distorted way of seeing the world. One of the best known
critiques of the taken-for-granted ways of representing the world is Brian Harley. He has
demonstrated how cartography is just not a mean to represent the world, but also to make it
(Hubbard et al., 2004, p. 7). The cartographer as a place-maker!
From a phenomenological point of view, places cannot be represented on a map at all. Nigel Thrift
claims that language and discourse is not adequate means for registering experiences and tacit
knowledge (embodiment) as expressed in his non-representational theory (Hubbard et al., 2004, p.
6). Still as landscape architects and planners we need the maps and other forms of representation in
order to communicate with stakeholders and others.
It is difficult to look into another field than one’s own, especially in a foreign language. I have not
mentioned several aspects on place that could be interesting to discuss; place and gender, place and
globalisation etc. But I hope these thoughts will inspire to a start on a discussion on Monday 3rd of
February!
Finally some tentative points of departure for the discussion:
Where is the place – in the physical environment, in a socially construction, or in our personal
experiences through our senses? Or maybe in the mind and as an intention of the author of the map
– the ‘cartographer’. How can these very different views on place be communicated in a situation
when change is planned or needed?
How do different researchers within SoL engage with and communicate places?
References
Allmendinger, Philip. (2009). Planning Theory (2nd ed.): Palgrave Macmillan.
Healey, Patsy. (2010). Making Better Places. The Planning Project in the Twenty-First Century:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hubbard, Phil, Kitchin, Rob, & Valentine, Gill (Eds.). (2004). Key Thinkers on Space and Place: Sage.
Jörgensen, Jan. (2003). Värdier i landskabet. In I. A. Olsen (Ed.), Landskab og landskabsarkitektur - en
antologi om tidens tankar (pp. 49-72): bifolia.
Robinson, Max. (2003). Place-making: the notion of centre. A typological investigation of means and
meaning. In S. Menin (Ed.), Constructing Place: Mind and Matter New York: Routledge.
Rodaway, Paul. (2004). Yi-Fu Tuan. In P. Hubbard, R. Kitchin & G. Valentine (Eds.), Key Thinkers on
Space and Place: Sage.
Thompson, I.H. (1999). Ecology, community and delight: sources of values in landscape architecture:
Spon Press.
Tuan, Yi-Fu. (1974). Space and Place: Humanistic Perspective. In S. Gale & G. Olsson (Eds.), Philosphy
in Geography (pp. 387-427): D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Westin, Sara. (2010). Planerat, alltför planerat. En perspektivistisk studie i stadsplaneringens
paradoxer. (Doctor), Uppsala universitet.