Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

200

 555  706  

Globalisation and Development


ENVS 434
Richard Phillips/Andy Davies

University  of  Liverpool  School  of  Environmental  Sciences   1  


200  555  706  

Topic:

‘Despite globalisation, place is now more important than ever in how we


confront the major issues affecting the world.’

University  of  Liverpool  School  of  Environmental  Sciences   2  


200  555  706  

Introduction

As a planner in training I am often instructed to consider the objective and more


formal elements of land use practices. The sometimes clinical fashion in which we
analyse the concept of place and physical elements of space, inevitably shape our
primary opinion when interpreting time-space and space place relations.

My experience of place has been an ephemeral one, associated with geographic


dislocation as a result of moving on a series of occasions to pursue academic
ventures. The levels of existence and affiliation with a place depending on the
relationship a person shares with their respective location, has a great deal to do with
place based experiences. Experiences become far more defined and lasting if one
critically observes their surroundings and establishes a connection with the people
and cultural practices relative to the place of living.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the differing views of place. In doing so an
attempt is made to shed light on the becoming, and change of place as a process,
outlining key factors in the building of space-place relationships. The materiality of
place is considered where both subjective and more physical objective components
of place are explored.

The interconnectedness of place and the fluid or porous boundaries between


geographically defined spaces are explored. The aim here is to investigate the
different scales at which the concept of place operates, together with the ability of an
established place to be receptive to external globalising influences.

As a point of departure the paper considers modern planning literature and its
relation to the current place-making agenda. Adopting a more political, clinical
standpoint. The dissection of place is analysed in terms of the potential for physical
development and its direct relation to socio-economic betterment.

Place as a process

The growth and development of socially responsive (urban) centres is better


understood when it is appreciated that space and the becoming of place is a process
not an end in itself. The principles for the construction of social and symbolic spaces
and the ‘mechanisms of reproduction’ for these same spaces, must be appreciated
when separating and in turn finding definitive theories to the way in which spaces,
symbolic and social are created. The character, internal structure and formal
identities of these spaces becomes clearer with the advent of collective histories
(Calhoun et. al. 2002 p.268). Throughout time the growth and development of social
spaces and the built fabric emerges from a palimpsest of historic layers of existence.
Therefore, the construction of place goes beyond a single ubiquitous architectural
discourse or course political action, as the passing of time causes a constant
reframing of how place is defined and delivered (Moore 2001 cited in Kelbaugh 2008
p.345).

Prior to further investigation into the building of place specific identities it is important
to mention that although the social aspect of place-making is considered as an
integral component of spatial definition it by no means circumscribes the totality of
place. Geographer John Agnew argues that modernist thought devalues the
traditional concept of place; where modern social science has blurred the distinction
between place and community. Agnew continues in stating that the modern view of
Community aims to encompass both “a physical setting for social relations” and a

University  of  Liverpool  School  of  Environmental  Sciences   3  


200  555  706  

“morally valued way of life” associated with localized concepts of traditional morality.
The argument is strengthened when such a term is broken down and not seen to
appreciate the dynamism of society that constitutes the making of place. This
element of flux, of diversity in the transformation of social spaces regards both the
rural village and the urban metropolis as places in which moral concepts can be
potentially fostered (Moore 2001 cited in Kelbaugh 2008 p.346).

Social scientist and geographer Doreen Massey (cited in Roberson 2001) supports
Agnew in his definition of place versus community. Massey exclaims that it is
important to note the difference between the two and that the pair are not
interchangeable, as they represent very different and discrete identities:

“communities can exist without being in the same place-from networks of friends with
like interests, to major religious, ethnic or political communities. On the other hand,
the instances of places housing single ‘communities’ in the sense of coherent social
groups are probably-and, I would argue, have long been-quite rare.”

(Roberson 2001 p.174)

When considering this idea of a community as a globally networked entity that has an
affiliation with a number of places, our understanding of place is further developed.
We are able to move away somewhat from the dominant view of place being bound
in internalised historicism and heritage, appreciating that place has the potential to
be defined as a ‘constellation of social relations, meeting and weaving together at a
particular locus.’ (Roberson 2001 p.176) This then strengthens the concept of places
not being static where a knitting together of complex social interactions represents a
constantly changing environment.

Furthering this Massey (2008 p.140) advocates for a concept of ‘throwntogetherness’


in the creation of place and place-specific identity. The negotiation between the ‘here
and now’; implications of ‘fixity’ of a location versus a moment which will indefinitely
pass by; and the relationship shared between human and nonhuman elements in the
making of a discrete, yet open, characterised, yet ever-changing place, all serve as
components of a dynamic network of global space-place relations.

To describe place as a site of instantaneous relations that form a socially constructed


whole requires the understanding that an initial state of coherence, community nor
collective identity will exist autonomously. To create place requires negotiation, of
which exists on a series of levels. Negotiation between humans is required as is the
relationship shared between man and surrounding natural elements. Both
components have a part to play in the true understanding of a predefined space.
Furthermore, where present, controlling political and economic structures need also
be considered in delivering a holistic sense of place; therefore properly defining the
concept of place in its truest form (Massey 2008 p.141).

When considering twinning the physical with the social Gallie’s (1955-6) comment on
place as a “constable concept” is challenged by Agnew, where often physical
geography is assimilated with location, point, area or space. This blurring gave cause
for Giddens (1983:79) to propose the term ‘locale’ as a substitute for place in order to
describe ‘physical settings in which social relations are constituted’. However as
Agnew asserts with the substitution of locale for place there is a risk of omitting the
component of place delivered through location. This dualism represents everyday
social practices as well as the ‘long-run siting of locales’ concerned with the
‘distribution of resources and physical construction of social settings.’ (Agnew 1987
p.26).

University  of  Liverpool  School  of  Environmental  Sciences   4  


200  555  706  

Materiality of place

The composition of place is presented by Moore (2001) through geographer John


Agnew’s (1987) work where he argues that the case of place making goes beyond a
simple physical description of quintessential architectural style and associated
topographic features. He presents three elements: location, sense of place and
locale as components that contribute to the holism of place (Moore 2001 cited in
Kelbaugh 2008 p.347).

By location a place and its given geographic location can potentially be defined by its’
associated political and economic relations and cross boundary interests. On a
macro scale the sharing of political structures often serves as a determinant of social,
economic and politically bound places.

A sense of place is delivered through the more intimate internal relationships of


distinct social spaces that shape the feeling, identity and “inter-subjective realities” of
place specific character. Agnew (cited on Moore 2001 p.348) talks of the “complex
human poetics of place” experienced by New Yorkers throughout the city streets; an
experience that is ever-changing but creates a refined distinction of a geographically
specific, place-related sense of being.

The element of locale is seen as a middle ground between the clinical objectivity of
location and the more subjective sense of place. Locale considers the urban fabric
and its’ role as a facilitator of social interaction; appreciating the city square,
residential blocks and the concept of a neighbourhood.1 In conclusion Moore (2001)
summarises the concept of place as a “dynamic process that links humans and non
humans in space at a variety of scales”. This description aims to alleviate the rigid
association with political and economic structures, defining a place in a way where
architectural style is to unable to accurately represent the depth and changing state
of socially defining spaces.

The fundamental right for social groups to feel comfortable in their surroundings is
often supported by the preservationist mentality opposing the onset of global tends of
development. However, why must increasing globalising practices be seen as a
negative threat to the concept of place, people and cultural practices associated with
specific social spaces? The challenge here is to establish the best form of
preservation of a locally distinctive uniqueness, while not acting with reactionary,
defensive intent. The concept of place is often defined by a historical rootedness
where future development is based on the heritage of a place and respects the
cultural practices of those who inhabit these spaces. While respecting the
‘internalised origins’ (Roberson 2001 p.172) of a place it is essential that severe
parochialism does not prevent change for the better.

Agnew (1987) argues that social relations must have an associated place in which to
reproduce and transform, Pred (1984 p.279) further articulates the point:

“Place…always involve an appropriation and transformation of space and nature that


is inseparable from the reproduction and transformation of society in time and space.
As such, place is not only what is fleetingly observed on the landscape, a locale, or
                                                                                                               
1  Here the concept of the neighbourhood to is difficult to define both in social structure and physical presence,
however it is not the intention of this paper to investigate the parameters of the term.  

University  of  Liverpool  School  of  Environmental  Sciences   5  


200  555  706  

setting for activity and social interaction (Giddens 1979:206-7; Giddens 1981:39, 45).
It also is what takes place ceaselessly, what contributes to history in a specific
context through the creation and utilization of a physical setting”

(Agnew 1987 p.27).

When considering the personal affiliation with a socially constructed space Pred
(1983:58) explains that a ‘felt sense of quality of life at a particular place and time’
further supports the ‘social-spatial definition of place from the inside.’ (Agnew 1987
p.29).

Agnew (1987) investigates the ‘theory of structuation’ following Pred’s (1983, 1984)
paradigm, developing the case for place-centred social theory. The concept of social
structures being based on the transformation of social practices is used as a
controlling theory in the overall structuation of social spaces and further affiliation
with place.

Thus far social theorists have failed to strengthen the link between geographical
components and their respective opinion on the formulation of social spaces,
elaborated by Pred (1983:46) in saying:

‘nobody identifiable with the structuation perspective really has succeeded in


conceptualising the means by which the everyday shaping and reproduction of self
and society, of individual and institution, come to be expressed as specific structure-
influenced and structure-influencing practices occurring at determinate locations in
time and space.”

(Agnew 1987 p.31).

The ephemeral nature of political and cultural practices make the roots of spatial
definition and place-specific identity a transient phenomena, yet to be elucidated.

Places as networks

In an environment where technological, socio-political and economic development is


in a constant state of flux, the understanding of the transitionary period where the
local becomes global is key.

Massey (2008) introduces the concept of space and how any given space through
social interaction and complex interrelations between the immediate, the proximal
and the distant presents space as a potentially (globally) networked component.

Initially space is considered an element to be travelled across with the potential to


house built structures, people and therefore the advent of place on its’ surface.
Essentially, the idea of space is entertained as a component which is capable of
being used to build ‘on’ and in placing elements ‘on’ a surface in a premeditated
fashion we implicitly create a history of interactions that characterize the interaction
between time and space, geographically defining place-specific social interaction.

Massey comments on her publication being centred around ordinary space; spaces
and places where socially constructed forums are created through relations between
complex multiplicities of social interaction and states of being (Massey 2008 p.13).
Furthering this the concept of a modernist grand narrative that describes place as a
‘instantaneity of interconnections’ is superseded by the concept of appreciating the

University  of  Liverpool  School  of  Environmental  Sciences   6  


200  555  706  

‘many’; the layers of activity and intricate, internal interdependencies that shapes
place.

Reverting back to the view of space as a surface, Massey claims that an


abandonment of this concept would result in a loss of the view of place also.
Here the case is put forward that space is able to describe stories of movement but
to a finite degree; this is where the concept of place intervenes better articulating the
histories of movement adding detail to the already known spatial aspects of social
activity. At the same time this refined sense of place details those aspects that are
yet to occur, all of which combine into a single, elaborate entity that ultimately
delivers place specificity. Such an understanding of space and place over time is
seen by Massey as creating places not as a distinct bounded area on a map but an
‘integration of space and time; as spatio-temporal events.’ (Massey 2008 p.130).

In order to understand place in such a fashion, it is essential to accept the concept of


‘openness’ of place setting a network of spatialities in a globally networked forumn;
integrating developing stories of human interaction with power geometries (Massey
2008 p.131) that contribute to the definition of place-specific activities.

Modern writings on space and place often emphasise a new era of development
previously described by Marx as ’the annihilation of space by time.’ This eradication
of space as a physical barrier by the advent of technological production over time
has resulted in what we now conceive as the ‘time-space compression.’ The question
is therefore posed as to how best to retain the element of place particularity within a
world of increasingly networked spatialities? The previously detailed assumption of
place being coterminous with a shared sense of community is challenged with the
intervention of globalisation and an ‘opening up’ of the local. Where globally
responsive environments are formed across developing continents the assumed
homogeneity of place is challenged in favour of ‘fragmentation’ and ‘spatial
disruption’ (Roberson 2001 p.167); byproducts; a response to the inevitable.2

A term here formed in this paper to describe our current experience of place aims to
develop an appreciation for the forms of interaction that contributes to the total
experience of place; levels of networked existence considers the spatial relations
between countries as economic strongholds; global forms of travel; and synthesised
network of fibre-optics that transfer information enabling us to communicate and
control flows of capital that partly generate the governing political values we
experience. And then, the human component, fitting in and around a growing number
of global systems that shape the way we interact with one-another and the wider
world (Roberson 2001 p.169).

Globalisation and influence

The globalising phenomena is inevitable. The purpose of this section is not to


challenge the existence of the trend but explore the way in which patterns of
globalisation are to potentially effect cultural practices and an established sense of
locale.

Calhoun (2002 p.267) tackles the concept of global versus local, he discusses
France, a country he claims to know ‘fairly well’ not only through the association of
birth-place and understanding of the native language but through extended study.
The argument is carried that through constructing models of social space and
                                                                                                               
2  Global expansion; chiefly in technological and economic forums that in turn have a direct impact on more localised
cultural and political practices.  

University  of  Liverpool  School  of  Environmental  Sciences   7  


200  555  706  

symbolic space in relation to France, the principles that form the composition of
these ‘spaces’ are globally transferrable and can therefore be used to analyse and
create a discourse for other global locations. The purpose of finding a quintessential
model to ‘make the abstract coexist with the concrete’ making a global network of
social and symbolic spaces exist on one level as a universal whole based on a
fundamental theory.

Massey (2008 p.5) presents the concept of place as a parochial response to an


inevitably globalising world. Put forward is the idea that a preservationist mentality
and the fossilisation of the traditionally local, will ensure the retention of place. The
idea here is to maintain the ‘sphere of the everyday, or real and valued practices, the
geographical source of meaning’ all of which contribute to an internalised, ‘locus of
denial’ and conservation. Massey therefore thinks of the alternative, a refusal of the
distinction of traditionally preserved places and spaces and a reworking of what is
outside versus what is in.

Through her appreciation of complex spatial relations the fundamental concept of


space is defined through a trio of interdependent avenues. First space is defined as
the ‘product of interrelations; constituted through interactions’ of which function on
globally reaching and more immediate intimate scales of operation. Second space is
seen as a forum that facilitates a sense of plurality, co-habitation and multiplicity.
Third the concept of flux is used to describe the ephemeral nature of any space, the
constant reconstruction of spaces is presented as a key component to the
understanding of any social space (Massey 2008 p.9).

The concept of places challenging our ability to live together is posed, and the part of
political structures in attempting to tame ‘order and chance’ into a form of ordered
anarchy is explored by Derrida (1996) stating that ‘Chaos is at once a risk and a
chance’, going on to explain that:

This chaos and instability, which is fundamental, founding and irreducible, is at once
naturally the worst against which we struggle with laws, rules, conventions, politics
and provisional hegemony, but at the same time it is a chance, a chance to change,
to destabilize. If there were continual stability, there would be no need for politics,
and it is to the extent that stability is not natural, essential or substantial, that politics
exists and ethics is possible. Chaos is at once a risk and a chance. (p.84)

Spatiality when considering such a construction of place is conditional on an


understanding of the relationship between space and spatialities and in support of
these spatialities, ‘spatial political structures’ and the way that spatially related
juxtapositions may be tamed or coded (Massey 2008 p.151).

As a planning student the concept of public space is currently a trending topic. The
privatisation of space, not least in the light of the economic down turn and resultant
public spending cuts, has led to the question of public rights of way and the allocation
of space: for whom are we delivering place? Massey (2008) writes on the
proliferation of enclosures that have grown in urban centres as a result of private
sector intervention; the privately run shopping mall, a quintessential example. These
places are often run with military precision by un-democratically elected figures
heading operational duties, excluding unwanted members of society who seemingly
do not appear to be prospective shoppers, while controlling the wider activity of
social spaces. The phenomena of privatisation contests the romanticism of public
spaces and connotations of freedom of expression and movement.

University  of  Liverpool  School  of  Environmental  Sciences   8  


200  555  706  

All spaces however contain a degree of regulation whether privately or otherwise


Massey (2008 p.152) comments that ‘all spaces are socially regulated in some way,
if not by explicit rules such as ‘no ball games’ or ‘no loitering’ then by potentially more
competitive, and potentially more market-like, regulation which exists in the absence
of explicit; collective, public, democratic and autocratic controls.

Donald (1999 p.139) turns his attention to cities specifically in questioning the ability
of social conflicts and the ability for effective co-habitation of city spaces. The
challenge of living together in space-places is presented questioning not only how
one lives in the City, but also how we are to live in the City as a collective (cited in
Massey 2008 p.155).

The concept of a ‘local way of life’ serves as a point of contention in defining who
controls the social activity and permeability of a place. Massey asks whether majority
local opinion should be seen as correct, or whether an internalised view is necessary
in order to defend a sense-of-place and cultural identity from an invasion of otherwise
personalised social space. This exclusionary mindset is reflected in current
arguments against UK immigration laws and smaller, middle-class, peripheral
communities and their unease with the policy of dispersal of refugees; potentially
having to co-habit spaces previously reserved for an established user (Massey 2008
p.164).

The manner to which we co-habit city spaces is constantly under tension due to the
increased intensity with which these space-places function (Massey 2008 p.169).
However it is the weaving together, mutual indifferences and outright antagonisms of
an ever-changing variety of existences that delivers the very relational politics and
spatial definition that characterizes our global cities.

As a counterbalance to the onset of practices of a globalising world, the action of


‘seeking a sense-of-place’ may ultimately be seen as reactionary. However does the
defence of a supposed traditional way of being prevent the progressive nature of
place; neglecting an outward looking, receptive nature in response to the surrounding
world, rather than focusing on the acute intricacies of the current social stasis? The
question is then raised as to whether the controlling capitalist structures that govern
and mediate spatial relations are responsible for the way in which we ultimately
experience the space-place parallel (Roberson 2001 p.168).

However, this experience is not solely reliant on the production and movement of
capital and economic relations. There are a very many aspects that contribute to the
experience of place including race and gender. When studying the design and
delivery of socially focused place-space projects the element of good urban design
and intelligent planning and/or manipulation of the built fabric also has a role to play
not only in the way places are experienced, but also in the way people choose to
interact within these places.

When we discuss the relationship shared between global places and the people that
they entertain Massey (2008) urges us to consider the previously touch upon concept
of power-geometry within this ever developing time-space compression. The element
of social mobility is a key indicator when aiming to define how different social groups
experience and relate to place. We must consider those who move and those who do
not, those who have the ability and the means to do so, and those that do not, those
who have no choice but to move and those who experience the world in a free,
unbounded fashion. The key component of power in relation to flows and movement
of people helps in explaining the concept of ‘differentiated mobilities’ (p.171) when
considering the experience place as one out of choice or necessity. It is here that we

University  of  Liverpool  School  of  Environmental  Sciences   9  


200  555  706  

appreciate the paradigm of the time-space compression. The time-space phenomena


is essentially bound by capitalist fueled technological advances that potentially
increase the standard of living for those managing the direction of the phenomena,
while ‘imprisoning’ those subservient to practices of economic growth. This relation
between capital and labour is in this instance fundamental to the determination of
place-based experiences and the potential for these experiences to be suppressive
to those social groups subject to relative mobility (Roberson 2001 p170).

Agnew (1987) argues that the structural framework of social relations is largely
dependent on ‘dominant institutional projects’ that ‘draw most on available time
resources’. The case is put forward that these institutions in most places are centred
around local material production and the distribution of goods. Agnew however
accepts that aspects of religious and political action amongst other agents also play
key roles in structural formation (Pred 1984:283 cited in Agnew 1987). Pred (cited in
Agnew 1987 p.32) further develops the concept of people as participants of social
activity in the structuring of place, viewing social activity as a discourse.

This building of place as a discourse is bounded by forces of nationalisation and


globalisation that are in turn mediated by local forces, where local (political)
intervention has experienced a marked increase in the handling of issues of
international importance. Therefore, ‘local politics is no longer solely about local
issues (Agnew 1987 p.33).

When considering the planning practice concept of place marketing Logan (1978
cited in Agnew 1987) explains that:

“a major outcome of the process of place creation is a collective effort within places
to pursue personal advantages through competition between places. Drawing on the
literature in human ecology he proposes (p.404) that “Places with early advantages,
by making full political use of their superior resources, can potentially reinforce their
relative position within the system of places. “

To develop a holistic view of place the external forces that shape places must be
understood. Local political action that determines localised ‘intergroup relations’
(Agnew 1987) are key in defining the formation and operation of place together with
more globally based action; war and economic activity.

The place-making agenda

The current state of political affairs with regard to the planning system is in a state of
flux. However, the intent to deliver place specific identities is still very much at the
forefront of the national planning agenda.

In 1998 Richard Rogers was commissioned by the then deputy prime minister John
Prescott to set up the Urban Task Force, a government body responsible for the
identification of causes of urban decline and development of visionary objectives
shaping the future of the country’s cities.

The controlling mantra of the UTF was to develop “well designed, compact and
connected cities supporting a diverse range of uses – where people live, work and
enjoy leisure time at close quarters, in a sustainable urban environment well
integrated with public transport and adaptable to change.”

University  of  Liverpool  School  of  Environmental  Sciences   10  


200  555  706  

As a result of UTF efforts “Towards a strong urban renaissance” was published in


1999 where Rogers remarks on a “measureable change of culture in favour of towns
and cities” where “cities are seen as assets rather than liabilities”. Rogers goes on to
describe England’s cities as different ‘places’ “from the post-industrial centres of
unemployment and failing public services of twenty years ago.” Suggesting that
visionary aspects of increased economic activity, building density and placing
specific regeneration initiatives and investment in public transport infrastructure, in
turn promoting social mobility, contribute to the structuring and cultural development
of place.

Furthermore from a professional and more clinical perspective the concept of social
engineering and betterment suggestively emerges from such political and economic
activity. This concept is therefore supported by the phenomena of expedited global
capital flows, enabling faster paced more flexible patterns of development that reflect
increasingly ephemeral communities that inhabit modern urban centres.

The report outlines the importance of twinning economics with aesthetics in order to
successfully deliver; innovative public spaces that contribute to the structure of any
given urban fabric while serving as a “foundation for public interaction and social
integration and; provide the sense of place essential to engender civic pride.” –
achieved through the carefully considered production of spatial masterplans that aim
to develop place-space relations based on existing topographic features and cultural
trends.

Challenges to place based initiatives are presented in the form of, however are not
limited to:

• Short termist commercial value trumping longevity and economic benefit


• The imposition of design on existing communities rather than an integrated
inclusive design process
• Politically influenced design coding that is often detached from place specific
charater
• Procurement and investment strategies that are curtailed by financial levers
or lack thereof between both public and private sector investors.

Government quango CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment)
superseded the RFAC (Royal Fine Art Commission) in 1999. The purpose of CABE
was to create a forum that aided design professionals in the production of creative
places and spaces. Working closely with local authorities and private sector partners
CABE’s work has often considered the fundamental foundations of the report
commissioned by the UTF in delivering places for people.

The 2009 CABE report ‘Planning for places’ works to embed the consideration and
production of place in politically sensitive planning and design documents with the
intent to add longevity to the future shaping of urban environments. Fundamental
government planning documents in the form of PPS(s) (Planning Policy
Statement(s)) are mandatory considerations in any form of land use development.
With particular reference to PPS 1 (2005) on the Delivery of Sustainable
Development central government outline that “good design is indivisible from good
planning”; this theory is therefore echoed throughout CABE’s contributions to better
urbanism.

University  of  Liverpool  School  of  Environmental  Sciences   11  


200  555  706  

In their 2009 publication it is argued that a good core strategy3 “needs to tell the story
of the place” through:

• explaining the important history, context and physical characteristics of the


area;
• talking about the people that live there;
• describing how the area functions;
• understanding the relationships that exist with the wider area and;
• understanding the opportunities the place offers.

The physical characteristics of a place are further discussed, as are the feel and
uniqueness of a place once developed.

Tarrow (1977:47 cited in Agnew 1987) outlines the components of state building in
relation to place-making commenting on how the task of linking the (dominant) centre
to ‘places incorporated by the state’ serves as a fundamental issue in the
development of western cities. Difficulty in linking places occurs through the
attempted linking of previously autonomous jurisdictions; the joining of discrete
cultural systems and integration of grass roots public and political activists in to a
larger, dominant political framework.

Agnew (1987) comments on the necessity of community integration and political


understanding of public priorities in order to construct and deliver territories that have
a concern for the public good at the core of political life. This relates to the emerging
planning agenda and mandatory aspect of community inclusion as a result of the
2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (PCPA). Continuing on Agnew then
highlights the importance of maintaining hegemony through the pursuit of political
action that is centred around place-based policies that encourage geographical
consequences that favour the people and places being planned for:

“Places, therefore, are connected to the state through it’s organisation into the
various tiers of administration and the geography of its hegemony…The political
parties and local-central links (the state) provides a locus for are in turn their main
channels of political expression.”

Conclusion

The current planning agenda surrounding the promotion of place is set in the context
of economic volatility, austerity measures and political instability. This therefore, in
many respects makes the concept of place even more apparent. Where there has
been a lack of funding, failing to support albeit stifled urban growth and global climate
sensitive initiatives, the element of place, preservation and geographic specificity
have all been brought to the forefront of the planning and development agenda.

A continually globalising world does require the consideration of localised practices.


However this should not mean exclusion or isolation from potential betterment and
integration into the inevitable progression time-space compression and therefore
changing scales of space-place relations. The superimposition of contemporary
development on any given place should not result in a perversion of the historic but
at the same time appreciate the language of the past in order to form a strong and
                                                                                                               
3  A fundamental component/document of an area specific spatial planning portfolio or Local development framework
(LDF)  

University  of  Liverpool  School  of  Environmental  Sciences   12  


200  555  706  

unique socially responsive dialogue for the future.

“It is a sense of place, an understanding of ‘its character’, which can only be


constructed by linking that place to places beyond. A progressive sense of place
would recognize that, without being threatened by it. What we need, it seems to me,
is a global sense of the local, a global sense of place.

(Roberson 2001 p.177)

Bibliography

University  of  Liverpool  School  of  Environmental  Sciences   13  


200  555  706  

Agnew, J. Place and Politics Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1987

Cptr 3: A theory of place and politics

Gallie, W. B. 1955-6 Essentially contested concepts. Proc. Arist. Soc. 56,


167-98.

Giddens, A. 1979 Central problems in social theory: action, structure and


contradiction in social analysis. London: Macmillan.

Giddens, A. 1981 A contemporary critique of historical materialism. Berkley,


Calif.:University of California Press

Giddens, A. 1983 Comments on the theory of structuation. J. Theory Soc.


Behav. 13, 75-80

Logan, J. R. 1978 Growth, politics and the satisfaction of places. Am. J. Soc.
84, 404-16

Massey, D. 1984 Spatial divisions of labour: social structures and the


geography of production. London: Methuen

Pred, A. 1983 Structuation and place: on the becoming of sense of place and
structure of feeling. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 13. 45-68

Pred, A. 1984 Place as historically contingent process: structuation and the


time-geography of becoming places. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogs. 74 (2), 279-97

Tarrow, S. 1977. Between centre and periphery: grassroots politicians in Italy


and France. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Ed. Calhoun. C, Gerteis. J, Moody. J, Pfaff. S & Virk. I. Contemporary Sociology


Theory Oxford. Blackwell Publishers. 2002.

Cptr 19 Social Space and Symbolic Space; Pierre Bourdieu

Ed. Kelbaugh. D. & Krankel McCullough. K. Writing Urbanism London. Routledge,


2008.

Technology, Place, and the nonmodern thesis; Steven A. Moore 2001

Massey. D, for space London. Sage Publications, 2008.

Derrida, J. (1996) ‘Remarks on deconstruction and pragmatism’ in C. Mouffe


(ed.), Deconstruction and pragmatism. London: Routeledge, pp.77-88.

Donald, J. (1999) Imagining the modern city. London: Athlone Press.

Massey, D. Spatial Divisions of Labour: Social Structures and the Geography of


Production Basingstoke. Macmillan, 1984

University  of  Liverpool  School  of  Environmental  Sciences   14  


200  555  706  

Roberson, S. L. (ed.) Defining Travel: Diverse Visions University Press of


Mississippi, 2001.

A Global Sense of Place; Doreen Massey

Planning for places: Delivering good design through core strategies CABE. London,
2009

Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivery of Sustainable Development London, 2005.


HMSO.

Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance: An independent report by members of the


Urban Task Force chaired by Lord Rogers of Riverside 1999.

University  of  Liverpool  School  of  Environmental  Sciences   15