{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018691588785046728, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.917127071823204, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Plassein: On the fluid mobility of place and urban qualities in planning

What could the addition of a variegated spatial approach contribute to planning studies? Planning studies, by and large, rely on Euclidean space as a ‘reality’ to be planned. However, Euclidean space may only be one of many spaces enacted in planning practice. Thus, this article proposes that most urban planning practice features at least a severe spatial imaginative challenge to our understanding of it. First, there is the problem of how to manage at a distance, which is solved by a translation and hence mobilization of place. Second, there is the problem of how mobilized place is done ex situ, which suggests that it must become somewhat fluid and be translated into plassein. These features are discussed in light of brief empirical illustrations drawn from a study of urban waterfront redevelopment in Swedish cities. In concluding the argument, a note is made on the relevance of plassein with a suggestion that fluidity is a requirement for achieving democracy in planning practices.