Abstract

In this study, we explore the recognition of publicness as understood by everyday users of public space. By analyzing news articles in South Korea selected from 1 January 2010, to 31 December 2018, this study examines a discourse which is largely missing in the existing studies—the subjective experience and framing of contemporary spatial publicness by its end-users. After analyzing the contents from a total of 583 articles in the KINDS database, we develop a general typology of how contemporary spatial publicness is represented in South Korea. Although the scope and background of questions surrounding South Korea’s recognition of contemporary spatial publicness are different from that of Western countries, a similar debate has emerged about what publicness means in the context of the architecture and urban space around the globe. By developing different thematic dimensions in the representations of contemporary spatial publicness, we further discuss the implications for future research to examine the pragmatic sensibilities of individuals and utility of semi-public/private space.

Highlights

  • Traditional boundaries of public and private spaces are becoming increasingly ambiguous [1,2,3]

  • By analyzing contents from news articles in South Korea selected from 1 January 2010, to 31 December 2018, we develop a general typology of how contemporary spatial publicness is represented in South Korea

  • We retrieved a total of 6 main categories and 58 subcategories related to spatial publicness based on our coding scheme

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Traditional boundaries of public and private spaces are becoming increasingly ambiguous [1,2,3]. Direct provision of services (i.e., management) by the public sector is being replaced by various hybrid schemes between the public and private sectors. This transition raised questions regarding the conceptualization of contemporary publicness of space. When faced with the question, “what is the concept of contemporary publicness on space?”, the answer is seldom clear. The problem is that there is no universal pragmatic definition of traditional publicness among various academic fields. Publicness is defined in a slightly different sense in each area and is largely defined by abstract and nebulous definitions that do not convey clear distinctions [3,4]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.