Modernity could be explained through the process of subordination of space to time. The Cartesian division between res extensa and res cogitans already established the differemiation of two independent realms: the first, abstraer, exterior and exceeding the realm of reason; the second, subjective and belonging ro the inner dimension of mind, through which knowledge and thought are possible. Western thought progressively associated these dimensions ro space and time respectively, the latter becoming the privileged realm of subjective interior, idemified with human spirit and the thinking subject. However, this historical negation of space was put into question after the so-called «spatial turn,» in which social sciences recovered space as a central category during decades of social, political and economic transformarions in a global scale. The understanding of space as a social product traversing multiple fields of knowledge led ro a certain displacement of architecture, which umil then had been considered ro be the practically exclusive discipline of space. After decades of engagement with the progressive socio-political project of Western modernity and its subsequent crisis during the last decades of the twentieth century, architecture retreated into questions of form and its autonomy as a discipline; a debate that persists today in cercain academic and professional circles. Under this scenario, now amplified with the global hegemony of (Western) capitalism, a revision of the category of space seems pertinent in order ro determine its contemporary relation ro the formal and socio-political dimensions of architecture. Although now deprived from the strength of dialectical approaches -harshly criticized by the major currems of comemporary philosophy-, the perspective of negativity and its multiple connotations may offer a renewed theoretical framework from which ro understand if space is still a relevam elemem for a contemporary architecture in crisis. In this regard, the field of urban public space, as an ideological construction that materializes in the city, appears as a fruitful field of study in which ro trace transitions between dominant conceptions of space during the last centuries through negations (undersrood as the overcomings of space from different areas: temporal, productive, visual .. . ); reverses (understood as counterspaces, the term coined by Henri Lefebvre ro designare alternatives ro abstraer, capitalist space), and the multiple spatial practices that configure and take place in this type of space, extending the purely architecmral and urban action.