Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
ceptions of space that are most often discussed in the literature, that is, 'space' in
the Euro-American common sense, which is Euclidean or Cartesian in character,
and a conception of space of networks. This is followed by a discussion of the
challenges that a cartographic representation of 'network space' in planning
implies.
CONCEPTIONS OF SPACE AND PLACE
Graham and Healey (1999) have argued that while a lot of attention has been paid
to conceptualising and theorising the new 'communicative' turn in planning theory
over recent years, much less interest has been given to the changing socio-spatial
nature of the places that are being 'planned'. Yet the impacts of globalisation and
of new information and communication technologies on the geography and social
activity are obvious, as is their relevance for planning theory and practice.
Spatiality is usually expressed through the continuity of shapes, and through
related issues such as their proximity or relative location. Continuity is concerned
with the question of how an object (or more precisely a shape) can be moved
through space while still retaining the essential relations which secure its continuity
as that shape, and permit it to move without distortion (Law, 2000). In the Euclid-
ean version of spatiality, shapes retain their continuity if a set of Cartesian co-ordi-
nates (i.e.
x
and
y
co-ordinates which depict geographical location and proximity)
remains stable relative to one another as the shapes and objects are displaced
through time and space. It has been argued that in the Euro-American common
sense space is seen as a neutral container in which objects exist, that 'space
comes before us' (Law, 2000). Cartesian space and its co-ordinate system are
thus seen as
defining
the conditions of im/possibility within which Euclidean
objects can exist.
Cartesian space therefore implies some important restrictions, and certainly
with regard to visualisation. Healey (2004) has argued that Euclidean geography
focuses on the material dimensions of cities and regions, and 'visions' about the
future are anchored in the idea that the physical future can be built according to a
plan, and that social relations can be 'read off' from physical relations. Classical
location and agglomeration theory, starting from either the supply side or the
demand side to explain concentrations of activity in space, is strongly rooted in an
Euclidean conception of space. Many of these economic or geographic theories
have influenced planning thought over the decades. For example, Weber (1909)
has, besides transport costs and regional differences in wages, also considered
advantages connected with spatial closeness, i.e. the understanding that regional
concentration creates benefits for production. Lösch (1940) and also Christaller
(1933) have seen the advantage of agglomeration as a large market. The object-
centred, Euclidean conception of space is strongly related to the paradigm of
