◍ Speech Abstract:

Representation of Public Spaces in the Post-Pandemic Era: To Overcome the Fear and Reconstructing the Cities

The so-called post-pandemic era does not mean that the pandemic has gone completely with everything back to normal. Instead, it refers to the situation where the pandemic remains with ups and downs, including small-scale breakthroughs, cross-border returns and seasonal onsets. As it involves a longer span of time, the global connection that has been cut has resulted in impacts on various domains and regions. Substantial and physical participation in public space, on the other hand, is also forced to distance by the pandemic. All of these have become the theme on which the meeting is focused.

Facing the challenge of “urbanization without cities”, a social paradox of the global information economic network of the 21^st century, plus the global economic penetration dominated by neoliberalism, rise of protectionism, manipulation of identity by the political stars of populism, differentiation of social structure, and trends of gated communities, the global power elites and social upper class that monopoly the resources have, due to their fear, built an urban trench to protect themselves. This has cut and damaged the agreement on “becoming a city”, an urban development agreement reached by citizens of different backgrounds (who believed in different house gods). When the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, developed countries that considered themselves as the leaders of the world expanded and reproduced cultural and ethnic prejudice. They clumsily and intentionally cut the global connection in the name of virus. As for Asia Pacific regions that the American power chose to maintain the world peace after the cold war (“Pax Americana”), risks derived from the modern and western hegemonic project have long appeared and the altar of the dominant power of modern architecture and urbanism no longer exists. As the matter of fact, most of the countries and some sensitive scholars and experts in academic institutes know fairly well that this symbolizes the outshine of the American power; and that they will not follow its command to convince the public or sway the society. As the substantial and physical participation in public space has been forced to distance by the pandemic in the post-pandemic era, it is a must to overcome the fear of cutting off the global connection. To face the reconstruction of cities, we can rely on the incoming reconnection and this is a common challenge that the public space must overcome.

With respect to the “reconstruction of cities” in the global information age, spatial practice is a new topic and challenge for experts in the field and this is a meaningful strategy for “building civilized city”:

1. The “public portal” for cities around the world now plays an even more significant role

International and cross-border movements, long-term migration or short-term work, and mass travel around the world – all of them are “visible activities” in urban areas around the world. Large hub airports in cities around the world (this is even a place of meeting for work and journey, and has to be a place for commercial consumptions and cultural experience and consumptions in order to financially support the operations of the airport); high speed railways and long-distance bus stations located in the city center; customs, ports and fudge; highways; and even the public transportation and rail transit system supported by new-type clean energy, all of these allow citizens, netizen and travelers across borders to travel around the world regardless of their gender, social rank, age and geographic relations. As the saying “the door welcomes guests from the world” or agricultural community’s traditional customs of serving tea to passerby (“feng-chia”), the “sense of arrival” delivered through public portal is often used to welcome guests. The corridors and halls that show one’s acceptability (ex., the “veranda” and “long corridor” of shop houses, engawa and badaosi) are also required as they help people to fight against social exclusion and build a brand-new urban experience, just like communal eating and drinking, places for exchanging information and society’s security blanket. Moreover, they are also counted as an important element for “image of the cities” that must not be ignored. These functional services and the experience that symbolizes satisfaction can help people to win a sense of belongingness – instead of a traveler’s loneliness – while travelling around. As Hakka people often say, “as years go by, a place far away will be a homeland”, the expertise of urbanism and design in the internet society, including making of plan (programming) can promote social transformation. How to be identifiable without getting lost, be friendly and tolerant, remove hostility and unfamiliar isolation, and substantially move while maintaining electronic links with mobility. Being circulating, mobile and able to traverse different places is a new connection relationship of space of flows and space of places. It is also the representation of networked spatial mobility.

2. Encourage citizens to use the center and reconstruct urban centrality

City is a space for communication and is a space for social representation of the meaning shared by personal identity and community identity. In the internet society and information city, the power of information flow has made the challenge even more difficult comparing with the past due to its cutting function and meaning. The communication function of the cities has extended to the internet society and information cities. With respect to the reconstruction of urban centrality, it is not necessary to advocate the distinction between centers. Nevertheless, it requests to combine functionalities and symbolic centrality; and is connected to special sub-subset or the entire metropolitan area. Public space can play a decisive role as the bridge between the community and individual. Confronted by the privatization trend of public space dominated by neoliberalism, such as consumption activities in a private shopping center, the separatism between the society and space has been enhanced. On the contrary, the cultivation of public space has facilitated the formation of potential; and encourages the opening to spontaneous use, including redefining the use of space. It offers the most important substantial and physical space bridge between different spatial meanings, allowing people to gather different meanings in urban experiences. Examples of the two design patterns are as follows:

(1) Design pattern that holds on the new “social participation process of commemorative creation”. This pattern provides a new symbolic meaning for spatial form; and shows and remembers the growth of social vitality from the aspect of meaning. With respect to public art, special buildings and urban design of urban infrastructure (ex., the stations of aforesaid highway and railway, bridge, electronic communication tower, urban park, waterfront promenade and so on); public and private support for the urban design of neighborhood and metropolis sub-centers; and even the customary “social gathering” places (ex., teahouse, night market, market, eaves gallery, arcade, veranda, public vegetable garden and so on), these places related to the creation of “the openness of open space” are considered as the space representation of Asia cities’ “public vitality”, “market vitality” and other historical particularity. This kind of cultural expression of existing urban issues and space is worthy to be achieved through citizen or social participation, or be shown on mobile electronic media (ex., an online check-in spot or be shared on Tiktok). It is a key mechanism that resumes the meaning in the new urban form.

(2) Design pattern that supports “Children in the City”. As a mechanism for building communities, school can combine families and surrounding communities through common concerns, children and the idea of “freely walk through the streets and alleys in the city”. Therefore, it can be considered as a representation of “city safety” space. In the less personalized pattern, it not only includes the socialization of new urbanites, but also reduced individuation resulted from the atoms caused by the world of multimedia due to overexposure.

Only 2 to 3 examples were made here due to limited time. Anyhow, during the post-epidemic period, we should overcome the fear of virus cut off and spatial isolation; and face the reconstruction of our cities with flows and connections. There are lots of things that we can do to represent public space and, by doing so, we will be able to realize the use value of urban space. As for the city itself, it should not be used as a tool to exchange or increase the values, but a transformation of citizen city and a process of transforming locality to community to urbanization and then to a public space. This is a reconstruction of city.

◍ 演講摘要：

後疫情時代的公共空間再現——克服恐懼與城市重建

所謂後疫情時代，並非疫情完全消失，恢復如前的狀況，而是疫情起伏，隨時小規模突破，或為跨界外地回流，或季節性發作，跨越時間較長，全球連結因切斷而對各領域與地方造成影響，而實質物理的公共空間參與被迫拉開距離，也成為會議聚焦的主題。

面對廿一世紀全球資訊經濟網絡社會悖論——“沒有城市的都市化”(urbanization without cities)的挑戰，新自由主義支配的全球經濟穿透，保護主義崛起，民粹主義的政治明星操弄認同，社會結構分化，門禁社區(gated communities)湧現，全球權力菁英與壟斷資源的社會上層，在恐懼感下深築都市戰壕求安全自保，切斷與破壞了（原先信仰不同家神的）不同的市民聚集而“成為城市”的共同都市契約。當新冠疫情爆發，發達國家為引領表帥，文化與族群偏見的擴大再生產，國家拙劣而有意圖地以病毒為藉口推波助瀾，有意切斷全球連結(global connection)。作為冷戰後美國強權維持世界和平(Pax Americana)的亞太區域，現代性與西方性的領導權計劃(hegemonic project)的危機早現，現代建築與規劃(modern architecture and utrbanism)的支配性權力神壇早已不再，絕大多數國家與其專業學院裡敏感的學者與專業者其實心中有數，象徵失色，不會隨日落西山美國的指揮棒繼續起舞，說服公共，忽悠社會。面對後疫情時代實質物理的公共空間參與被迫拉開距離，必須克服切斷的恐懼，用稍後即至的再連結，面對城市的重建，這是公共空間再現的共同挑戰。

全球信息化下的“城市重建”，空間實踐的新課題是專業者的新挑戰，這是賦予都市意義的“市民城市戰略”：

1. 全球城市的“公共門戶”意義比過去更顯得重要

國際性越界移動，長期移民或短期工作，世界範圍的大眾旅行，都是全球都會區域裡“可見的活動”：全球城市的大型樞紐性機場（這裡甚至將是工作與旅程會商地方，以及，還要成功地作為商業消費與文化體驗消費的地方，也才能在財務上支持機場之營運）、中心城市的高鐵站與遠程公車站、海關、港口與碼頭、高速公路、以至於新形態的清潔能源支持的公共運輸與軌道交通系統，城流鄉動的市民/網民與越界旅遊者，男男女女，不同階級與年齡，以及不同的地緣關係，“門迎天下客”，或是農業社會地方以“奉茶”待路過之客，以公共門戶的“到達感”歡迎來客，他們同樣需要的接納性的廊道與門廳，店屋(shop houses)的亭子腳與涼廳子，緣側(engawa)或巴道西(badaosi)，如同在社區裡吃吃喝喝(communal eating and drinking)，或是信息交換地方的碰面與社會避風港，對抗社會排除(social exclusion)的陰影，建構起全新的都市經驗，以及，這裡是他們的“城市意象”(image of the cities)裡不可忽視的元素。他們的功能性服務與象徵性滿足體驗，可以獲得流動中的歸屬感而非人在天涯的孤單寂寞，昔日客家人所說的“日久他鄉是故鄉”，正是網絡社會裡的規劃與設計專業，包括計畫書製作(programming)以推動社會轉化，的可施為的工作。如何可辨認而不會迷路、友善、包容、去除敵意與陌生的孤立感，以及，身體實質地移動，卻繼續保持移動性的電子連結。他們帶著流動，以及移動，橫越過不同的地方。這就是5G技術支持的流動空間(space of flows)與地方空間(space of places)的新連結關係，也是網絡化的空間移動性(networked spatial mobility)的空間再現。

2. 鼓勵市民使用中心，重構都市中心性(urban centrality)

城市是溝通的空間，關乎個人認同與社群認同所共享意義的社會再現的空間。在網絡社會資訊城市裡，資訊之流的力量，由於它們切割功能和意義的能力，這項挑戰比以往還要艱鉅。城市的溝通功能延伸到網絡社會資訊城市的特質，重構都市中心性不必然主張中心之間區分階層，但是它要求結合功能性和象徵性的中心性，連結上都會區域裡的特殊次集合或整個都會區域。公共空間可以擔任社區和個人之間橋樑的決定性角色。面對新自由主義支配下公共空間的私有化趨勢，如消費活動封閉於私人的購物中心，強化了社會–空間的分離主義。與此相反地，公共空間的培育促進潛力，以及鼓勵向自發性使用開放，包括對空間使用的重新定義，提供了賦予不同空間意義之間最重要的實質物理的空間橋樑，可以將不同的意義重新聚攏在都市經驗裡。試舉兩個設計模式( design patterns)：

(1). 把握新的“紀念性營造的社會參與過程”的模式。可以為空間形式提供新的象徵意義，從意義的角度來表明與銘記都會裡社會活力的成長。對於都會基礎設施（前述高速公路鐵路車站、橋樑、電子通訊塔、都會公園、水濱散步道等等）的公共藝術、獨特建築、都市設計，以及鄰里與都會次中心都市設計的公共和私人支持，甚至是，已經是歷史慣行的“社交聚集”的地方，如茶館、夜市、市集、簷廊、五腳砌、騎樓、公共菜圃，等這些關乎“開放空間的開放性”(the Openness of Open Space)營造，是亞洲城市的“公共活力”、“市場活力”歷史特殊性的空間再現，也是“城市節慶氛圍”的象徵意義表現。這種既有都市議題與空間的文化形式表現，值得通過市民參與或社區參與的過程實現，以及，在移動電子媒體上展現，成為網紅打卡或抖音傳播的地方，是把握新城市形式裡恢復意義的關鍵機制。

(2). 支持“在城市裡的孩童”(Children in the City)這類型的設計模式。學校做為建造社區的機制，透過共同關心，孩童，“自在地在城市裡穿街過巷”，將家庭和周圍社區結合，也是“城市安全”的空間再現。藉此，在比較不個人化的模式裡，含納了新都市人世代的社會化，減輕因為過度暴露於多媒體世界所導致的原子個體化的後果。

因時間有限，僅能舉兩三個例子。總之，後疫情時刻，克服病毒切斷與空間隔離的恐懼，以流動與連結面對城市的重建，公共空間的再現，可以施力之處很多，這樣，都市空間的使用價值得以實現，而城市，並不是交換價值升值追逐的工具，這是市民城市的轉型，由地域(local)與社區(community)走向都市(urban)與公共(public)的過程。這是城市的重建。