Although sharing city is by definition a “place-based” approach to understand sharing activities, and despite the fact that spatial proximity and configuration can affect the formation of sharing practices, neither the impacts of sharing activities on space nor the different spatial attributes, which in turn condition sharing activities and behaviors, have been adequately explicated. In this article, the sociospatial dimensions of sharing space are encapsulated through the following three vectors on different spatial scales—namely, urban sharing, sharing a living space, and shared social spaces—and described through the case examples of the dockless bikeshare program, sharing a domestic space, and the coworking space and hackerspace, respectively. These vectors are then framed as the contours of a general theory of sharing spaces.
AwanN.SchneiderT.TillJ. (2011). Spatial agency: Other ways of doing architecture. New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
BaumA.ValinsS. (1977). Architecture and social behavior: Psychological studies of social density. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
BenklerY. (2004). Sharing nicely: On shareable goods and the emergence of sharing as a modality of economic production. Yale Law Journal, 114, 273-358.
4.
BotsmanR.RogersR. (2010). What’s mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consumption. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
5.
BradleyK.PargmanD. (2017). The sharing economy as the commons of the 21st century. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 10, 231-247.
6.
CohenB.MunozP. (2016). Sharing cities and sustainable consumption and production towards an integrated framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 87-97.
7.
CorburnJ. (2009). Toward the healthy city: People, places, and the politics of urban planning. Cambridge: MIT Press.
8.
DaviesS. R. (2017). Hackerspaces: Making the maker movement. Malden, MA: Polity.
9.
DaviesS. R. (2018). Characterizing hacking: Mundane engagement in US hacker and makerspaces. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 43, 171-197.
10.
FainsteinS. S. (2010). The just city. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
11.
FedorenkoO. (2017). The Sharing City Seoul: Global imaginaries of the sharing economy and its local realities. Development and Society, 46, 373-397.
12.
FishmanE. (2016). Bikeshare: A review of recent literature. Transport Reviews, 36, 92-113.
13.
GoodfriendW. (2009). Proximity and attraction. In ReisH. T.SprecherS. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships (pp. 1298-1299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
GouldnerA. W. (1960). The norms of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociology Review, 25, 161-178.
15.
HalpernD. (2005). Social capital. Cambridge, England: Polity.
16.
HarveyD. (2012). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. London, England: Verso.
17.
HarveyD. (2014). Seventeen contradictions and the end of capitalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
HodkinsonS. (2012). The new urban enclosures. City, 16, 500-518.
19.
JohnN. A. (2017). The age of sharing. Malden, MA: Polity.
20.
KlinenbergE. (2012). Going solo: The extraordinary rise and surprising appeal of living alone. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
21.
KulpH. S.KoolA. L. (2015). You help me, he helps you: Dispute systems design in the sharing economy. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 48, 179-230.
22.
Mateo-BabianoI.BeanR.CorcoranJ.PojaniD. (2016). How does our natural and built environment affect the use of bicycle sharing?Transportation Research Part A, 94, 295-307.
23.
McLarenD.AgyemanJ. (2015). Sharing cities: A case for truly smart and sustainable cities. Cambridge: MIT Press.
MerkelJ. (2017). Coworking and innovation. In BatheltH.CohendetP.HennS.SimonL. (Eds.), The Elgar companion to innovation and knowledge creation (pp. 570-586). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
SchorJ. B.Attwood-CharlesW. (2017). The “sharing” economy: Labor, inequality, and social connection on for-profit platforms. Sociology Compass. doi:10.1111/soc4.12493
37.
SennettR. (2018). Building and dwelling: Ethics for the city. London, England: Allen Lane.
38.
Shareable. (Ed.). (2018). Sharing cities: Activating the urban commons. Retrieved from https://www.sharingcities.net
39.
SimonH. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
40.
SinningH. (2017). Affordable housing and sharing cities: Future challenges for spatial development and planning in Europe?disP—The Planning Review, 53, 88-89.
41.
StanekL. (2011). Henri Lefebvre on space: Architecture, urban research, and the production of theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
42.
SützlW.StalderF.MaierR.HugT. (2012). Introduction. In SützlW.StalderF.MaierR.HugT. (Eds.), Media, knowledge and education: Cultures and ethics of sharing (pp. 7-14). Innsbruck, Austria: Innsbruck University Press.
43.
ValeL. J.CampanellaT. J. (Eds.). (2005). The resilient city: How modern cities recover from disaster. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
44.
WarfB.AriasS. (Eds.). (2009). Introduction: The reinsertion of space into the social sciences and humanities. In The spatial turn: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 1-10). London, England: Routledge.
45.
WeymesM. (2018). Kitchen share: A sustainable community resource for home cooks. In Shareable (Eds.), Sharing cities: Activating the urban commons. Retrieved from https://www.sharingcities.net
46.
WidlokT. (2017). Anthropology and the economy of sharing. New York, NY: Routledge.
47.
WilliamsM. R.HallJ. C. (2015). Hackerspaces: A case study in the creation and management of a common pool resource. Journal of Institutional Economics, 11, 769-781.
