Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/105057
PIRA download icon_1.1View/Download Full Text
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorSchool of Design-
dc.creatorBruyns, G-
dc.creatorNel, D-
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-03T01:46:00Z-
dc.date.available2024-04-03T01:46:00Z-
dc.identifier.issn1357-5317-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10397/105057-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherPalgrave Macmillanen_US
dc.rights© Springer Nature Limited 2020en_US
dc.rightsThis version of the article has been accepted for publication, after peer review (when applicable) and is subject to Springer Nature’s AM terms of use (https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/policies/accepted-manuscript-terms), but is not the Version of Record and does not reflect post-acceptance improvements, or any corrections. The Version of Record is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41289-020-00127-5.en_US
dc.subjectHigh-density cityen_US
dc.subjectHong Kongen_US
dc.subjectLateral-privatisationen_US
dc.subjectPublic spaceen_US
dc.subjectSpatial piracyen_US
dc.titleLateral-privatisation of the publics : Hong Kong’s spatial strugglesen_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.spage266-
dc.identifier.epage279-
dc.identifier.volume25-
dc.identifier.doi10.1057/s41289-020-00127-5-
dcterms.abstractHong Kong is one of the most ‘public’ open space challenged cities in the world. As a result of the city’s ‘patchwork’ planning practices, the privatisation of all space has become a means of control that directly impacts developmental typologies and social mobility. It remains a landscape which is more opportunistic than strategic, resulting in spatial compression for the sake of profitability. Through over privatisation, the multi-utilities of ‘spaces for the public’ constitutes negotiated spatial norms, a process whereby space is re-claimed through tactical means. This paper focuses on how the social mechanises the concept of spatial piracy of accessible (in and exterior) space to define what we term ‘lateral-privatisation’, in the lieu of a civic-spatial relationship. The argument presents two examples that expedite lateral-privatisation, discussing the umbrella movement and weekly takeover of open space by foreign domestic helpers. Conclusions are made by arguing that lateral-privatisation should be viewed as a spatial alternative, an informal design mechanism that advocates socially driven, spatially situated social justice. Through examining ‘by who’, ‘for whom’ and ‘where’, the lateral-privatisation concept positions an alternative model, between the privatisation of cities and the social (re)claims made within dense landscapes that promotes social dis-inclusion.-
dcterms.accessRightsopen accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationUrban design international, 2022, v. 25, p. 266-279-
dcterms.isPartOfUrban design international-
dcterms.issued2020-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85084212406-
dc.description.validate202403 bckw-
dc.description.oaAccepted Manuscripten_US
dc.identifier.FolderNumberSD-0090en_US
dc.description.fundingSourceSelf-fundeden_US
dc.description.pubStatusPublisheden_US
dc.identifier.OPUS20506983en_US
dc.description.oaCategoryGreen (AAM)en_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Bruyns_Lateral-Privatisation_Publics_Hong.pdfPre-Published version322.84 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Open Access Information
Status open access
File Version Final Accepted Manuscript
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show simple item record

Page views

19
Citations as of Jul 7, 2024

Downloads

5
Citations as of Jul 7, 2024

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

4
Citations as of Jul 4, 2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

1
Citations as of Jul 4, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.