Authors : Ahmed Akhtaruzzaman; Md Ahsanul Kabir

Volume/Issue : Volume 9 - 2024, Issue 7 - July

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4eh57jwu

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/3edmbf45

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24JUL480

Abstract : Space has a social dimension. Social space consists of physical space and mental space. Physical and mental perspectives are only able to achieve partial description or cross-sections of space. The general approach of physical planning is concentrated only on physical dimension of space. Most city planners deal with essentially static concepts with land use maps and plans they prepare. They tend to view the city as a static arrangement of physical objects which lacks in mental space. Again, mind is spatially oriented. Hence, there is a gap between the ways our cities have been built and the way people perceive them. Above all, neither the plan nor their underlying studies have successfully depicted the city as a social process operating in space. In the course of time, every section and part of the city takes on something of the character and qualities of its inhabitants. In current (urban) planning process, space is dealt to offer on facilities and services people require to have a better life. It is ignored to explore how they perceive their surrounding and every day’s space domain. This paper explores ‘social space’ as a planning tool and examines its potential application in the physical planning process.

Keywords : Social Space, Physical Space, Mental Space, Physical Planning.

References :

1. Ahsan, Q. (2009), “Evaluation of Ecological Urban District in Malmo- Sweden”, Jahangirnagar  Planning Review, Vol.7, pp. 33-44.
2. Babere, N.J. (2015), “Social Prodcution of Space: "Lived Sapce" of Informal Livelihhod Operators; the Case of Dares Salaam City Tanzania”, Qurrent Urban Studies, pp. 286-299, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/cus 2015.54024 (accessed on 2 october 2016)
3. Butimer, A. (1969), Social sapce as an Interdisciplinary Perspective, Mexico: Mark Hall Ltd..
4. Camona, M., Tim, H., Toner, O. & Steve, T. (2006), Public Places, Urban Spaces, Oxford: Elsevier.
5. Carp, J. (2004), “Wit,Style, and Substance: How planners Shape Public Participation”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, p. 244 avialble at http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/34464694 (accessed on 20 September 2016)
6. Carter, H. (1982), The Study of Urban Geography. London: Edward Arnold Ltd..
7. The Daily Sabuj (2015), “The holy dip”, 1 April, p.3.
8. The Daily Sodesh Songbad (2015), “Political turmoil”, 30 January, pp.2, 3&5.
9. Enyedi, G. (2004), Public Participation in socially Sustainable Urban Development. Budapest: Ungerian Academy of Science.
10. Gottediener, M. (1994), The Social Production of Urban Space, Austin: University of Texas Press.
11. Greed, C (1996),  Introducing Town Planning. Essex: Wesley Longman Limited.
12. Kaiser,E.J., Godschalk, D.R. & Chaplin, F.S. (1995), Urban land use planning, University of Illinios Press, Urbana and Chicago Kerr, D. (1994), “The Time of Trail by Space? Critical reflections on Henry Lefebvre's Epoch of Sapce: Common Sense”, Jouirnal of Edinburgh Conference of Socialsit Economists, Vol-15, pp. 18-35.
13. Leary, M.E. (2015), “A Freash Look at Lefebvre's Spatial and Differntial Space: A Central Place in Planning Theory”?, Advancers in Mathematics and Computer Science and their Applications, pp. 68-72, avialable at www.academia.edu/17161563 (accessed on 1 November 2016).
14. Lefebvre, H. (1991), The prodcution of Space, UK: Basil Biackwell Ltd. .
15. Lynch, K. (1960), The Image of the City, Cambridge: Hravard University Press.
16. Garret, W. & Mahaffey, N. (2016), “Designing Difference: Co-Prodcution of Spaces of Potentiality” Urban Planning, Volume 1, Issuue 1, pp. 59-67, available at www.cogitatiopress.com/ojs/in (accessed on 20 Novemver 2016)
17. Mamun, M. (1994),  Bangladesher Utsava, Dhaka: Bangla Acedemy.
18. Mawla, K.A. (2016), ‘Datail area Plan (DAP) 2007: A Post-Mortem’The Daily Independent,19 January, p.11
19. Murtaza, M.G. (2012), A GLOSSARY OF TERMS OF URBAN, RURAL AND REGIONAL PLANNING, Dhaka: Centre for Urban Studies (CUS).
20. Nazem, N.I. (2013), “URBAN PLANNING IN BANGLADESH:EDUCATION, RESERCH AND PROFESSION”, Centre for Urban Studies Bullettin, 21 August, p. 3.
21. Rahman, G. (2008), Town Planning and the Political Culture of Planning in Bangladesh, Dhaka: A H Development Publishing House.
22. Rahman, N. (2007), Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan Strategic Environmental Assessment, Dhaka: The World Bank.
23. Roberts, M. (1974), An Introdcution to Town Planning Techniques. London: Hutchison & Company Ltd..
24. Shields, R. (1999), Lefebvre, Love and Struggle, New York: Rotledge.
25. Stamp, L. (1998), Applied Geography. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
26. Stuart, E. (2004), Understanding Henri Lefebvre, New York: Continuum.
27. Tanvir, A. (2016), “Rethinking about Advocacy Planning in the Context of Bangladesh: Bridging Relationship among Policy Makers, Planners and People”, World Twon Planning Day, 2106, p. 62.