政治地理學者主張國家的要素（人民、土地、主權等）必須先決存在。然而在社區或地方的尺度，成員與社區的領域卻不必然有一個固定的關係。因為社區的領域、社區的成員與社區意識，往往呈現互動與辯證的存在。地理上的因素不再扮演著決定性的關係，決定社區的大小領域。公、私領域的分野是變動的。民眾為社區福祉參與公共決策，國家也需要民眾參與以支持政策的合法性。然而公共決策將面對領域變動的問題：誰是可以合理參與決策的社區成員？公共事務是否有因領域而造成的資格限制？公領域是否有疆界？利害關係人的身份是否有領域與疆界？本文主張當創新的論述提出重新詮釋事物的本質時，社區與成員的領域都會因此改變。在公領域擴張的情況下，唯一可以合理化領域擴張的理由是公共利益。領域變動的合法性來源必須是創新的公共利益論述，而公共利益的創新亦可視為一領域擴大，與空間及利害關係人資格的變動有辯證關係。 　　本文以迪化街私人財產公共化的過程檢驗上述的辯證關係。公領域是變動的，並且有獨特的地緣性公領域現象出現。在此一個案中不同參與者的互動形成新的領域，但其實並未在公共論述中產生領域變動，而是由權力決定公共空間。

Political geographers argue that the components of state, i.e. territory, people and sovereign authority, must be in place before any specific form of regime could possibly begin to operate. In general this is commonly accepted in international affairs. However, this may not be analogous to community affairs because territory, community members and the sense of community are interactive and intertwined. Geographical factors may no longer be able to predetermine the boundaries of a community, particularly in an urban area. It is difficult to distinguish the public realm from the private. The public realm may invade the private realm, and vice versa. When it comes to participation, the question that bothers geographers most is perhaps who the people are. The paper argues that new discourses may result in different interpretations of the nature of a community and its territory and people. In the case of the expansion of the public realm, it is only acceptable in a democracy that the action is accountable in the public interest. Innovation of the re-definition of the public interest is in itself a territorial change. Decisions about who is entitled to be involve are normally made in the real-politik, which makes the forming of public space a political process. The paper documents a political process of place-making by introducing a case study: Di-hua street’s case. The dialectical relationship mentioned above was examined. Public realm was not fixed and the geo-public realm phenomenon excluded some people from participation in the case. Different actors proposed different discourses in this case and new public space has been formed accordingly. The paper concludes that it is power that accounts for the process of place-making.