I think the points Michel made were very interesting to think about, as his definitions for “space” and “place” were very different from mine. He defines space as “intersections of multiple elements”, while for place it’s “an instantaneous configurations of positions”, basically speaking, he sees spaces with interactions and changes made by the people who use them, while place is just something that exists. This is completely different to how I see space and place, I think space is just a void without anything with it, which is up to the people who use it in order for it to change, and over time, this “space” becomes a place. For example, the bridges of Hong Kong might have been only a space to connect different areas and buildings, but over time as more people use it to go to work or go home, it has become a place of its own.
Bertin Tong Ho Yin 3035745130
De Certeau’s definition of space and place is a little bit counter-intuitive, aren’t they? I also had similar confusion at the beginning, but it started to make more sense when I think it through the places and spaces I have experienced (or even designed) so far. I found it easier to relate the “space” to narrative or stories and “place” into a venue. Taking your example into account, I take that you are referring to your preconception about space and place instead of De Certeau’s definition. If you had to explain the example through De Certeau’s “eyes”, what stories might there be, at the bridges of Hong Kong, that has made them “space”?