The term Space of Flows may seem to be coined by Manuel Castell in his writing piece, Space of Flows, Space of Places: Materials for a Theory of Urbanism in the Information Age. However, Paul Virilio had the very similar meaning and theory of how contemporary space had changed, due to the use of technology through his “Over-exposed City” in 1987. No matter in fact who has originated the term or the meaning of the Space of Flows, the usage of our contemporary space had a paradigm shift for a while, since the late modernism, post-postdernism, deconstructionism or even nowadays.

What is interesting in the information age though, is that the space definition never really try to include the physical and mental intimacy interaction between human and tangible spaces. New meaning of spaces have been described as the dynamic of intangible power, politics, economics, social influences. But what exactly human beings need in using (mental/physical) of the space never been correctly prescribed. That is why 20-30 years later upon the advance of internet technology, we still want to live in a comfortable “places.” The “places” that was claimed as static!

Another point that is also interesting when we look at how we have shaped our cities, through the history of mankind is “power” (status and economy included). From the ancient city of Rome to the image of the city of Boston (analyzed by Kevin Lynch) to New York City, to Shainghai, etc. There are all composed of complex layers influenced how cities had become and be percepted. People at the top, for the most part, made the decision for others and how the direction of the society (cities) would be.

The last point that I am interested (perhaps disappointed) while reading the writing piece of Castell is that the Space of Flows left out how human and technology have totally disconnected to their natural environment (aka the real Flow of Nature). This disconnection, to me, seems not to be important when we define spaces, places, or space of flows.