In the whole passage, I’m impressed by his definition of the concept of “place” and “space”, which refers to coexistence of elements and mobility of elements respectively. In my opinion, “space” is less valuable than “place” as similar concept also mentioned by de Certeau, since space can be changed from time to time due to environmental or man-made changes. However, in comparison, “place” consists of and built on from “space”, which makes “place” something more treasurable. From my perspective, we can only call a place a “place” when it has specific meanings, no matter something functional or historical.
Take the Kowloon Walled City as an example, it was a small community inside in the past, then being cleared off, and recently been established as “Kowloon Walled City Park”. By the definition mentioned above, it has been changed from a place to a space, then returned back to a place. However, the collective memories of this “place” as “Kowloon Walled City” still exist among Hong Kong citizens’ mind, even though it has been turned into an utterly different “place” currently. In contrast, no one remembers it’s existence as a “space” (vacant land after clearance of the Kowloon Walled City), because no specific meaning is given or provided at that stage.
Therefore, my understanding and opinion on the differences of a “space” and “place” is whether it can generate some sort of meaning when it exists.
Marco, Poon Kwan Yiu 3035797432
Your example on the Walled City is quite on-point. Place is related to identity, (collective) memory, history. Yet, do not belittle the importance of space. When you think of the Walled City, I believe you must have thought about its spatial quality: crowded, dense, dim… The spatial quality has given shape to our memory and is thus important to be taken note of.