File Download
  • No File Attached
 
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
 
Supplementary

Article: Spatial practice, conceived space and lived space: Hong Kong's 'Piers saga' through the Lefebvrian lens
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitleSpatial practice, conceived space and lived space: Hong Kong's 'Piers saga' through the Lefebvrian lens
 
AuthorsNg, MK1
Tang, WS2
Lee, J3
Leung, D1
 
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
 
CitationPlanning Perspectives, 2010, v. 25 n. 4, p. 411-431 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2010.505060
 
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.
 
ISSN0266-5433
2013 Impact Factor: 0.356
 
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2010.505060
 
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
 
DC FieldValue
dc.contributor.authorNg, MK
 
dc.contributor.authorTang, WS
 
dc.contributor.authorLee, J
 
dc.contributor.authorLeung, D
 
dc.date.accessioned2010-12-23T08:46:51Z
 
dc.date.available2010-12-23T08:46:51Z
 
dc.date.issued2010
 
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.
 
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext
 
dc.identifier.citationPlanning Perspectives, 2010, v. 25 n. 4, p. 411-431 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2010.505060
 
dc.identifier.citeulike8363310
 
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2010.505060
 
dc.identifier.epage431
 
dc.identifier.hkuros177889
 
dc.identifier.issn0266-5433
2013 Impact Factor: 0.356
 
dc.identifier.issue4
 
dc.identifier.pmid20857601
 
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-77956828054
 
dc.identifier.spage411
 
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/130089
 
dc.identifier.volume25
 
dc.languageeng
 
dc.publisherRoutledge. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/02665433.asp
 
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom
 
dc.relation.ispartofPlanning Perspectives
 
dc.relation.referencesReferences in Scopus
 
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 article
 
dc.subjectColonial spatial planning practice
 
dc.subjectHarbour reclamation
 
dc.subjectHong Kong
 
dc.subjectLefebvre
 
dc.subjectUrban planning and civil society
 
dc.titleSpatial practice, conceived space and lived space: Hong Kong's 'Piers saga' through the Lefebvrian lens
 
dc.typeArticle
 
<?xml encoding="utf-8" version="1.0"?>
<item><contributor.author>Ng, MK</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Tang, WS</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Lee, J</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Leung, D</contributor.author>
<date.accessioned>2010-12-23T08:46:51Z</date.accessioned>
<date.available>2010-12-23T08:46:51Z</date.available>
<date.issued>2010</date.issued>
<identifier.citation>Planning Perspectives, 2010, v. 25 n. 4, p. 411-431</identifier.citation>
<identifier.issn>0266-5433</identifier.issn>
<identifier.uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10722/130089</identifier.uri>
<description.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&apos;s Pier was so controversial. To Lefebvre, embedded in &apos;spatial practices&apos; that &apos;secrete&apos; a place are two contradicting spaces: &apos;conceived spaces&apos; produced by planners to create exchange values and &apos;lived spaces&apos; appropriated by citizens for use values. Applying Lefebvre&apos;s framework to examine the &apos;Piers saga&apos;, it is found that the pre-Second World War (WWII) piers were &apos;conceived&apos; 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 &apos;lived&apos; 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 &apos;appropriate&apos; them as &apos;lived&apos; space. When the Government planned to remove this very first &apos;lived&apos; 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. &#169; 2010 Taylor &amp; Francis.</description.abstract>
<language>eng</language>
<publisher>Routledge. The Journal&apos;s web site is located at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/02665433.asp</publisher>
<relation.ispartof>Planning Perspectives</relation.ispartof>
<rights>This 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 article</rights>
<subject>Colonial spatial planning practice</subject>
<subject>Harbour reclamation</subject>
<subject>Hong Kong</subject>
<subject>Lefebvre</subject>
<subject>Urban planning and civil society</subject>
<title>Spatial practice, conceived space and lived space: Hong Kong&apos;s &apos;Piers saga&apos; through the Lefebvrian lens</title>
<type>Article</type>
<description.nature>Link_to_subscribed_fulltext</description.nature>
<identifier.doi>10.1080/02665433.2010.505060</identifier.doi>
<identifier.pmid>20857601</identifier.pmid>
<identifier.scopus>eid_2-s2.0-77956828054</identifier.scopus>
<identifier.hkuros>177889</identifier.hkuros>
<relation.references>http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-77956828054&amp;selection=ref&amp;src=s&amp;origin=recordpage</relation.references>
<identifier.volume>25</identifier.volume>
<identifier.issue>4</identifier.issue>
<identifier.spage>411</identifier.spage>
<identifier.epage>431</identifier.epage>
<publisher.place>United Kingdom</publisher.place>
<identifier.citeulike>8363310</identifier.citeulike>
</item>
Author Affiliations
  1. The University of Hong Kong
  2. Hong Kong Baptist University
  3. Chinese University of Hong Kong