File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Spatial practice, conceived space and lived space: Hong Kong's 'Piers saga' through the Lefebvrian lens

TitleSpatial practice, conceived space and lived space: Hong Kong's 'Piers saga' through the Lefebvrian lens
Authors
KeywordsColonial spatial planning practice
Harbour reclamation
Hong Kong
Lefebvre
Urban planning and civil society
Issue Date2010
PublisherRoutledge. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/02665433.asp
Citation
Planning Perspectives, 2010, v. 25 n. 4, p. 411-431 How to Cite?
Abstract
By applying the Lefebvrian lens, this paper tries to understand why unlike previous similar cases, the latest removal of the Star Ferry and Queen's Pier was so controversial. To Lefebvre, embedded in 'spatial practices' that 'secrete' a place are two contradicting spaces: 'conceived spaces' produced by planners to create exchange values and 'lived spaces' appropriated by citizens for use values. Applying Lefebvre's framework to examine the 'Piers saga', it is found that the pre-Second World War (WWII) piers were 'conceived' by spatial practices of a colonial and racially segregated trading enclave. The public space in the commercial heart that housed the previous generations of piers was not accessible to the Chinese community, thus denying them opportunities to appropriate them and turn them into 'lived' spaces. It was only after WWII when the Government carried out further reclamation to meet the needs of an industrializing economy that inclusive public spaces were conceived in the commercial heart, enabling the general public to 'appropriate' them as 'lived' space. When the Government planned to remove this very first 'lived' space in the political and economic heart of the city to conceive further reclamation for the restructuring economy, the more enlightened citizens were determined to defend it. © 2010 Taylor & Francis.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/130089
ISSN
2013 Impact Factor: 0.356
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

Author Affiliations
  1. The University of Hong Kong
  2. Hong Kong Baptist University
  3. Chinese University of Hong Kong
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorNg, MKen_HK
dc.contributor.authorTang, WSen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLee, Jen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLeung, Den_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-12-23T08:46:51Z-
dc.date.available2010-12-23T08:46:51Z-
dc.date.issued2010en_HK
dc.identifier.citationPlanning Perspectives, 2010, v. 25 n. 4, p. 411-431en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0266-5433en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/130089-
dc.description.abstractBy applying the Lefebvrian lens, this paper tries to understand why unlike previous similar cases, the latest removal of the Star Ferry and Queen's Pier was so controversial. To Lefebvre, embedded in 'spatial practices' that 'secrete' a place are two contradicting spaces: 'conceived spaces' produced by planners to create exchange values and 'lived spaces' appropriated by citizens for use values. Applying Lefebvre's framework to examine the 'Piers saga', it is found that the pre-Second World War (WWII) piers were 'conceived' by spatial practices of a colonial and racially segregated trading enclave. The public space in the commercial heart that housed the previous generations of piers was not accessible to the Chinese community, thus denying them opportunities to appropriate them and turn them into 'lived' spaces. It was only after WWII when the Government carried out further reclamation to meet the needs of an industrializing economy that inclusive public spaces were conceived in the commercial heart, enabling the general public to 'appropriate' them as 'lived' space. When the Government planned to remove this very first 'lived' space in the political and economic heart of the city to conceive further reclamation for the restructuring economy, the more enlightened citizens were determined to defend it. © 2010 Taylor & Francis.en_HK
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherRoutledge. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/02665433.aspen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofPlanning Perspectivesen_HK
dc.rightsThis is an electronic version of an article published in [include the complete citation information for the final version of the article as published in the print edition of the journal]. [JOURNAL TITLE] is available online at: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ with the open URL of your articleen_US
dc.subjectColonial spatial planning practiceen_HK
dc.subjectHarbour reclamationen_HK
dc.subjectHong Kongen_HK
dc.subjectLefebvreen_HK
dc.subjectUrban planning and civil societyen_HK
dc.titleSpatial practice, conceived space and lived space: Hong Kong's 'Piers saga' through the Lefebvrian lensen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.emailNg, MK: meekng@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityNg, MK=rp01015en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/02665433.2010.505060en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid20857601en_HK
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-77956828054en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros177889en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-77956828054&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume25en_HK
dc.identifier.issue4en_HK
dc.identifier.spage411en_HK
dc.identifier.epage431en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000208577900001-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridNg, MK=7202076324en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridTang, WS=7403431002en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLee, J=24481787000en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLeung, D=14054073000en_HK
dc.identifier.citeulike8363310-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats