Place, Space, and Sociology

The Meaning of an Urban Preservation Movement in the Twenty-First Century

Abstract

The idea that time and space are homogeneous, one of the fundamental premises of the modern age, has long been under siege. Le Corbusier's vision of the functional city, as described in his book La ville radieuse has lost its "radiance." We have come to realize that the city is not a transparent, three-dimensional "space" in which any particular content can be exchanged for any other. Rather, we have rediscovered that it is a "place" embodying a variety of memories and meanings, an inconvertible "something," and that it is impossible to reduce it to a mere land parcel of a certain length and width. The urban places we live in are not interchangeable. The word "preservation" therefore means not the prevention but the control of growth and development. Preservation allows and even promotes change.
"Place," however, has a dual nature. It can be a base for resistance, or a myth whose consumption legitimizes the denaturing and transforming of place into space. What needs to be asked, therefore, is who is resisting this transformation, and to what extent they are resisting the myth that legitimizes it.
Since 1984, the author has continuously studied the movement to preserve the Otaru Canal, and his studies show that the movement was neither conservative nor aesthetic. Rather, the movement sought to promote changes in which the residents' "place" would continue to be theirs. It rejected the city government's monopoly of power over city planning, and the idea that a "place" belonging to the residents should be seen as a mere "space" for road construction. It demanded local autonomy as a means for residents to control change. The movement raises the question of how we should build cities that take into account local residents' own "places," and reminds sociologists of the importance of incorporating the historic environment in their analyses.