After reading the chapter about spatial stories, I would like to share my opinions on one of the main issues raised by the author—Place&Space.
The writer says in the text, ”a space is a practiced place.” Honestly, even I read through the whole text, I still wonder why this is the case, but not the other way round. To me, a place should not have boundary, but a space does. I guess this may be quite different from all of you may think of. Let me explain why: To me, a place contains not only practical objects, but also the intagibles: spirit, culture and lifestyle. They should belong to a place. A place is created when people keep using a space, so that the uniqueness of a place reflects. A place, as we may know, is often named uniquely—-The Connaught Road, The University of Hong Kong, they all have a name. And during the process people use it, the intangibles are created: The neighbourhood spirit in Hong Kong, so called人情味, is a good evidence of such kind.
I appreciate your brave critique of De Certeau’s interpretation of “place” and “space”. This still should be an open-end question, even though it has been constantly and repeatedly argued. You do not necessarily agree with De Certeau’s opinion as you figure out a reasonable argument to defend your standpoint. I guess Yifu Tuan’s interpretation of “space” and “place” may provide new access to these two concepts: “Place is security, space is freedom: we are all attached to one and long for the other.” I highly recommend you to read his pieces about humanity geography, hopefully, they can evoke your echo.