ABSTRACT
Interestingly, it is within the channels of movement, or places that are more temporary, that most people spend their time; either working, travelling or consuming. Whether we ourselves are moving or other things are moving, these places matter to us. But why do such places tend to be overlooked and how much is understood about their relationship to the places that indicate a desirable contemporary lifestyle? Do we think that they are ultimately dispensable? Is it simply the case that the only sense of place possible is with the qualities only associated with the places of recognised value? Another thing that characterises places of cultural worth is that they are easily visualised and comprehended. They are easily identified as a more authentic experience over something that is less certain. So is this a question of image over substance? Is the image of a particular kind of place more important than the reality of how places actually function or of what our true relationship to them is?
